Can anyone please tell me how there is privilege change in Windows OS.
I know the user mode code (RL:3) passes the parameters to APIs.
And these APIs call the kernel code (RL:1).
But now I want to know, during security(RPL) check is there some token that is exchanged between these RL3 API and RL1 Kernel API.
if I am wrong please let me know (through Some Link or Brief description) how it works.
Please feel free to close this thread if its offtopic, offensive or duplicate.
RL= Ring Level
RPL:Requested Privilege level
Interrupt handlers and the syscall instruction (which is an optimized software interrupt) automatically modify the privilege level (this is a hardware feature, the ring 0 vs ring 3 distinction you mentioned) along with replacing other processor state (instruction pointer, stack pointer, etc). The prior state is of course saved so that it can be restored after the interrupt completes.
Kernel code has to be extremely careful not to trust input from user-mode. One way of handling this is to not let user-mode pass in pointers which will be dereferenced in kernel mode, but instead HANDLEs which are looked up in a table in kernel-mode memory, which can't be modified by user-mode at all. Capability information is stored in the HANDLE table and associated kernel data structures, this is how, for example, WriteFile knows to fail if a file object is opened for read-only access.
The task switcher maintains information on which process is currently running, so that syscalls which perform security checks, such as CreateFile, can check the user account of the current process and verify it against the file ACL. This process ID and user token are again stored in memory which is accessible only to the kernel.
The MMU page tables are used to prevent user-mode from modifying kernel memory -- generally there is no page mapping at all; there are also page access bits (read, write, execute) which are enforced in hardware by the MMU. Kernel code uses a different page table, the swap occurs as part of the syscall instruction and/or interrupt activation.
Related
I am working on a proprietary device driver. The driver is implemented as a kernel module. This module is then coupled with an user-space process.
It is essential that each time the device generates an interrupt, the driver updates a set of counters directly in the address space of the user-space process from within the top half of the interrupt handler. The driver knows the PID and the task_struct of the user-process and is also aware of the virtual address where the counters lie in the user-process context. However, I am having trouble in figuring out how code running in the interrupt context could take up the mm context of the user-process and write to it. Let me sum up what I need to do:
Get the address of the physical page and offset corresponding to the virtual address of the counters in the context of the user-process.
Set up mappings in the page table and write to the physical page corresponding to the counter.
For this, I have tried the following:
Try to take up the mm context of the user-task, like below:
use_mm(tsk->mm);
/* write to counters. */
unuse_mm(tsk->mm);
This apparently causes the entire system to hang.
Wait for the interrupt to occur when our user-process was the
current process. Then use copy_to_user().
I'm not much of an expert on kernel programming. If there's a good way to do this, please do advise and thank you in advance.
Your driver should be the one, who maps kernel's memory for user space process. E.g., you may implement .mmap callback for struct file_operation for your device.
Kernel driver may write to kernel's address, which it have mapped, at any time (even in interrupt handler). The user-space process will immediately see all modifications on its side of the mapping (using address obtained with mmap() system call).
Unix's architecture frowns on interrupt routines accessing user space
because a process could (in theory) be swapped out when the interrupt occurs.
If the process is running on another CPU, that could be a problem, too.
I suggest that you write an ioctl to synchronize the counters,
and then have the the process call that ioctl
every time it needs to access the counters.
Outside of an interrupt context, your driver will need to check the user memory is accessible (using access_ok), and pin the user memory using get_user_pages or get_user_pages_fast (after determining the page offset of the start of the region to be pinned, and the number of pages spanned by the region to be pinned, including page alignment at both ends). It will also need to map the list of pages to kernel address space using vmap. The return address from vmap, plus the offset of the start of the region within its page, will give you an address that your interrupt handler can access.
At some point, you will want to terminate access to the user memory, which will involve ensuring that your interrupt routine no longer accesses it, a call to vunmap (passing the pointer returned by vmap), and a sequence of calls to put_page for each of the pages pinned by get_user_pages or get_user_pages_fast.
I don't think what you are trying to do is possible. Consider this situation:
(assuming how your device works)
Some function allocates the user-space memory for the counters and
supplies its address in PROCESS X.
A switch occurs and PROCESS Y executes.
Your device interrupts.
The address for your counters is inaccessible.
You need to schedule a kernel mode asynchronous event (lower half) that will execute when PROCESS X is executing.
I have been trying to understand how do h/w interrupts end up in some user space code, through the kernel.
My research led me to understand that:
1- An external device needs attention from CPU
2- It signals the CPU by raising an interrupt (h/w trance to cpu or bus)
3- The CPU asserts, saves current context, looks up address of ISR in the
interrupt descriptor table (vector)
4- CPU switches to kernel (privileged) mode and executes the ISR.
Question #1: How did the kernel store ISR address in interrupt vector table? It might probably be done by sending the CPU some piece of assembly described in the CPUs user manual? The more detail on this subject the better please.
In user space how can a programmer write a piece of code that listens to a h/w device notifications?
This is what I understand so far.
5- The kernel driver for that specific device has now the message from the device and is now executing the ISR.
Question #3:If the programmer in user space wanted to poll the device, I would assume this would be done through a system call (or at least this is what I understood so far). How is this done? How can a driver tell the kernel to be called upon a specific systemcall so that it can execute the request from the user? And then what happens, how does the driver gives back the requested data to user space?
I might be completely off track here, any guidance would be appreciated.
I am not looking for specific details answers, I am only trying to understand the general picture.
Question #1: How did the kernel store ISR address in interrupt vector table?
Driver calls request_irq kernel function (defined in include/linux/interrupt.h and in kernel/irq/manage.c), and Linux kernel will register it in right way according to current CPU/arch rules.
It might probably be done by sending the CPU some piece of assembly described in the CPUs user manual?
In x86 Linux kernel stores ISR in Interrupt Descriptor Table (IDT), it format is described by vendor (Intel - volume 3) and also in many resources like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt_descriptor_table and http://wiki.osdev.org/IDT and http://phrack.org/issues/59/4.html and http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/X86_Assembly/Advanced_Interrupts.
Pointer to IDT table is registered in special CPU register (IDTR) with special assembler commands: LIDT and SIDT.
If the programmer in user space wanted to poll the device, I would assume this would be done through a system call (or at least this is what I understood so far). How is this done? How can a driver tell the kernel to be called upon a specific systemcall so that it can execute the request from the user? And then what happens, how does the driver gives back the requested data to user space?
Driver usually registers some device special file in /dev; pointers to several driver functions are registered for this file as "File Operations". User-space program opens this file (syscall open), and kernels calls device's special code for open; then program calls poll or read syscall on this fd, kernel will call *poll or *read of driver's file operations (http://www.makelinux.net/ldd3/chp-3-sect-7.shtml). Driver may put caller to sleep (wait_event*) and irq handler will wake it up (wake_up* - http://www.makelinux.net/ldd3/chp-6-sect-2 ).
You can read more about linux driver creation in book LINUX DEVICE DRIVERS (2005) by Jonathan Corbet, Alessandro Rubini, and Greg Kroah-Hartman: https://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/
Chapter 3: Char Drivers https://lwn.net/images/pdf/LDD3/ch03.pdf
Chapter 10: Interrupt Handling https://lwn.net/images/pdf/LDD3/ch10.pdf
I am developing a real-time application for Linux 3.5.7. The application needs to manage a PCI-E device.
In order to access the PCI-E card spaces, I have been using mmap in combination with /dev/mem. However (please correct me if I am wrong) each time I read or write the mapped memory, a system call is required for the /dev/mem pseudo-driver to handle the memory access.
To avoid the overhead of this system call, I think it should be possible to write a kernel module so that, within e.g. a ioctl call I can modify the process page table, in order to map the physical device pages to userspace pages and avoid the system call.
Can you give me some orientation on this?
Thanks and regards
However (please correct me if I am wrong) each time I read or write the mapped memory, a system call is required
You are wrong.
it should be possible to write a kernel module so that, within e.g. a ioctl call I can modify the process page table
This is precisely what mmap() does.
Since the CPU runs in user/kernel mode, I want to know how this is determined by kernel. I mean, if a sys call is invoked, the kernel executes it on behalf of the process, but how does the kernel know that it is executing in kernel mode?
You can tell if you're in user-mode or kernel-mode from the privilege level set in the code-segment register (CS). Every instruction loaded into the CPU from the memory pointed to by the RIP or EIP register (the instruction pointer register depending on if you are x86_64 or x86 respectively) will read from the segment described in the global descriptor table (GDT) by the current code-segment descriptor. The lower two-bits of the code segment descriptor will determine the current privilege level that the code is executing at. When a syscall is made, which is typically done through a software interrupt, the CPU will check the current privilege-level, and if it's in user-mode, will exchange the current code-segment descriptor for a kernel-level one as determined by the syscall's software interrupt gate descriptor, as well as make a stack-switch and save the current flags, the user-level CS value and RIP value on this new kernel-level stack. When the syscall is complete, the user-mode CS value, flags, and instruction pointer (EIP or RIP) value are restored from the kernel-stack, and a stack-switch is made back to the current executing processes' stack.
Broadly if it's running kernel code it's in kernel mode. The transition from user-space to kernel mode (say for a system call) causes a context switch to occur. As part of this context switch the CPU mode is changed.
Kernel code only executes in kernel mode. There is no way, kernel code can execute in user mode. When application calls system call, it will generate a trap (software interrupt) and the mode will be switch to kernel mode and kernel implementation of system call will executed. Once it is done, kernel will switch back to user mode and user application will continue processing in user mode.
The term is called "Superviser Mode", which applies to x86/ARM and many other processor as well.
Read this (which applies only to x86 CPU):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(computer_security)
Ring 0 to 3 are the different privileges level of x86 CPU. Normally only Ring0 and 3 are used (kernel and user), but nowadays Ring 1 find usages (eg, VMWare used it to emulate guest's execution of ring 0). Only Ring 0 has the full privilege to run some privileged instructions (like lgdt, or lidt), and so a good test at the assembly level is of course to execute these instruction, and see if your program encounters any exception or not.
Read this to really identify your current privilege level (look for CPL, which is a pictorialization of Jason's answer):
http://duartes.org/gustavo/blog/post/cpu-rings-privilege-and-protection
It is a simple question and does not need any expert comment as provided above..
The question is how does a cpu come to know whether it is kernel mode or its a user mode.
The answer is "mode bit"....
It is a bit in Status register of cpu's registers set.
When "mode bit=0",,,it is considered as kernel mode(also called,monitor mode,privileged mode,protected mode...and many other...)
When "mode bit=1",,it is considered as User mode...and user can now perform its personal applications without any special kernel interruption.
so simple...isn't it??
How does Windows protect against a user-mode thread from arbitrarily transitioning the CPU to kernel-mode?
I understand these things are true:
User-mode threads DO actually transition to kernel-mode when a system call is made through NTDLL.
The transition to kernel-mode is done through processor-specific instructions.
So what is special about these system calls through NTDLL? Why can't the user-mode thread fake-it and execute the processor-specific instructions to transition to kernel-mode? I know I'm missing some key piece of Windows architecture here...what is it?
You're probably thinking that thread running in user mode is calling into Ring 0, but that's not what's actually happening. The user mode thread is causing an exception that's caught by the Ring 0 code. The user mode thread is halted and the CPU switches to a kernel/ring 0 thread, which can then inspect the context (e.g., call stack and registers) of the user mode thread to figure out what to do. Before syscall, it really was an exception rather than a special exception specifically to invoke ring 0 code.
If you take the advice of the other responses and read the Intel manuals, you'll see syscall/sysenter don't take any parameters - the OS decides what happens. You can't call arbitrary code. WinNT uses function numbers that map to which kernel mode function the user mode code will execute (for example, NtOpenFile is fnc 75h on my Windows XP machine (the numbers change all the time; it's one of the jobs of NTDll is to map a function call to a fnc number, put it in EAX, point EDX to the incoming parameters then invoke sysenter).
Intel CPUs enforce security using what's called 'Protection Rings'.
There are 4 of these, numbered from 0 to 3. Code running in ring 0 has the highest privileges; it can (practically) do whatever it pleases with your computer. The code in ring 3, on the other hand, is always on a tight leash; it has only limited powers to influence things. And rings 1 and 2 are currently not used for any purpose at all.
A thread running in a higher privileged ring (such as ring 0) can transition to lower privilege ring (such as ring 1, 2 or 3) at will. However, the transition the other way around is strictly regulated. This is how the security of high privileged resources (such as memory) etc. is maintained.
Naturally, your user mode code (applications and all) runs in ring 3 while the OS's code runs in ring 0. This ensures that the user mode threads can't mess with the OS's data structures and other critical resources.
For details on how all this is actually implemented you could read this article. In addition, you may also want to go through Intel Manuals, especially Vol 1 and Vol 3A, which you can download here.
This is the story for Intel processors. I'm sure other architectures have something similar going on.
I think (I may be wrong) that the mechanism which it uses for transition is simple:
User-mode code executes a software interrupt
This (interrupt) causes a branch to a location specified in the interrupt descriptor table (IDT)
The thing that prevents user-mode code from usurping this is as follows: you need to be priviledged to write to the IDT; so only the kernel is able to specify what happens when an interrupt is executed.
Code running in User Mode (Ring 3) can't arbitrarily change to Kernel Mode (Ring 0). It can only do so using special routes -- jump gates, interrupts, and sysenter vectors. These routes are highly protected and input is scrubbed so that bad data can't (shouldn't) cause bad behavior.
All of this is set up by the kernel, usually on startup. It can only be configured in Kernel Mode so User-Mode code can't modify it.
It's probably fair to say that it does it in a (relatively) similar way to what Linux does. In both cases it's going to be CPU-specific, but on x86 probably either a software interrupt with the INT instruction, or via SYSENTER instruction.
The advantage of looking at how Linux does it is that you can do so without a Windows source licence.
The userspace source part is here here at LXR and the
kernel space bit - look at entry_32.S and entry_64.S
Under Linux on x86 there are three different mechanisms, int 0x80, syscall and sysenter.
A library which is built at runtime by the kernel called vdso is called by the C library to implement the syscall function, which uses a different mechanism depending on the CPU and which system call it is. The kernel then has handlers for those mechanisms (if they exist on the specific CPU variant).