I'm new to kernel modules development and in my study process, I moved to the interrupts. My task is to write an interrupt handler module for IRQ 8, which will simply count the number of interrupts that occurred on this line and store the value in the kobject. The task sounds relatively easy at a first glance, but I've encountered strange behaviour. I wrote a handler function that simply increments the counter and returns interrupt as handled
static int ir=0;
static irq_handler_t my_handler(int irq_no, void *dev_id, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
ir++;
return (irq_handler_t) IRQ_HANDLED;
}
To hook the interrupt handler I call the request_irq() function inside my __init with the first argument being 8, so the IRQ 8 (which is reserved by rtc) line interrupts are handled
#define RTC_IRQ 8
[...]
int err;
err = request_irq(RTC_IRQ, (irq_handler_t) my_handler,IRQF_SHARED,"rtc0",NULL);
if (err != 0)
return -1;
With the implementation shown above, loading a kernel module gives me err equal to -22, which is EINVAL. After googling I discovered that for the IRQF_SHARED flag last parameter can't be assigned as NULL. I tried to find a method to obtain rtc->dev_id within the module, but in some of the examples they just typecasted the handler into (void *) so I tried passing (void *) my_handler. This gives me a flag mismatch warning on insmod
genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (rtc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)
And err value set to -16, what I read from some sources means "busy". While trying to find a way to obtain a device-id I found out that interrupt is sent by the rtc0 device which is "inherited" from the rtc-cmos parent.
There are different controversial clues I found in different sources across the internet on this matter. Some state that the kernel disables rtc after the synchronization of the software clock, but this can't be the case, since the use of sudo bash -c ' echo +20 > /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm ' and read of /proc/interrupts on the IRQ 8 line shows that interrupts are working as intended
Other sources state that all the request_irqs directed to the line must have the IRQF_SHARED flag installed to be able to share the interrupt line. Reading the source file for rtc-cmos gave me nothing since they are setting up interrupts via reading-writing CMOS directly
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out the solution to the problem, but it seems like the RTC interrupts aren't commonly used in a kernel modules development, so finding relevant and recent information on the case is difficult, most of the discussions and examples are related to the implementation when SA_SHIRQ-like flags were used and /drivers/examples folder was present in the kernel source files which is something around kernel version 2.6. And both interrupts and rtc kernel implementation were changed since those times
Any hints/suggestions that may help resolve this issue will be greatly appreciated. This is my first StackOverflow question, so if anything in its format is wrong or disturbing you are welcome to point it out in the comments as well
Thanks in advance for any help
I solved the problem quite a while ago now, but here's some explanation for newbies like me. #stark provided a good hint for the problem.
The main thing to understand is that irresponsible actions in the kernel space quickly lead to a "disaster" of sorts. Seemingly, this is the main reason Linux developers are closing more and more regions from the users/developers.
Read here for the solution
So, in modern kernel versions, you don't randomly tie the handler to a line and mark interrupts as resolved. But you still can "listen" to them using the IRQF_SHARED flag and at the end of your handler you let the interrupt untouched by returning IRQ_NONE, so you are not breaking the correct operation of the rest of the kernel if the interrupt is crucial for something else.
End of the solution, some extra advice on kernel development next
At the very start, it is important to understand that this is not a Userspace where your actions at most will lead to a memory leakage or corruption of some files. Here your actions will easily damage your kernel. If a similar scenario happened to Windows, you'll have no other choice than completely reinstalling the entire OS, but in GNU/Linux this is not really the case. You can swap to a different kernel without the need to go through a tedious process of recovering everything as was before, so if you are a hardcore enthusiast that's too lazy to use VMs, learning to swap kernels, will come in handy real soon:)
For a 32-bit windows application is it valid to use stack memory below ESP for temporary swap space without explicitly decrementing ESP?
Consider a function that returns a floating point value in ST(0). If our value is currently in EAX we would, for example,
PUSH EAX
FLD [ESP]
ADD ESP,4 // or POP EAX, etc
// return...
Or without modifying the ESP register, we could just :
MOV [ESP-4], EAX
FLD [ESP-4]
// return...
In both cases the same thing happens except that in the first case we take care to decrement the stack pointer before using the memory, and then to increment it afterwards. In the latter case we do not.
Notwithstanding any real need to persist this value on the stack (reentrancy issues, function calls between PUSHing and reading the value back, etc) is there any fundamental reason why writing to the stack below ESP like this would be invalid?
TL:DR: no, there are some SEH corner cases that can make it unsafe in practice, as well as being documented as unsafe. #Raymond Chen recently wrote a blog post that you should probably read instead of this answer.
His example of a code-fetch page-fault I/O error that can be "fixed" by prompting the user to insert a CD-ROM and retry is also my conclusion for the only practically-recoverable fault if there aren't any other possibly-faulting instructions between store and reload below ESP/RSP.
Or if you ask a debugger to call a function in the program being debugged, it will also use the target process's stack.
This answer has a list of some things you'd think would potentially step on memory below ESP, but actually don't, which might be interesting. It seems to be only SEH and debuggers that can be a problem in practice.
First of all, if you care about efficiency, can't you avoid x87 in your calling convention? movd xmm0, eax is a more efficient way to return a float that was in an integer register. (And you can often avoid moving FP values to integer registers in the first place, using SSE2 integer instructions to pick apart exponent / mantissa for a log(x), or integer add 1 for nextafter(x).) But if you need to support very old hardware, then you need a 32-bit x87 version of your program as well as an efficient 64-bit version.
But there are other use-cases for small amounts of scratch space on the stack where it would be nice to save a couple instructions that offset ESP/RSP.
Trying to collect up the combined wisdom of other answers and discussion in comments under them (and on this answer):
It is explicitly documented as being not safe by Microsoft: (for 64-bit code, I didn't find an equivalent statement for 32-bit code but I'm sure there is one)
Stack Usage (for x64)
All memory beyond the current address of RSP is considered volatile: The OS, or a debugger, may overwrite this memory during a user debug session, or an interrupt handler.
So that's the documentation, but the interrupt reason stated doesn't make sense for the user-space stack, only the kernel stack. The important part is that they document it as not guaranteed safe, not the reasons given.
Hardware interrupts can't use the user stack; that would let user-space crash the kernel with mov esp, 0, or worse take over the kernel by having another thread in the user-space process modify return addresses while an interrupt handler was running. This is why kernels always configure things so interrupt context is pushed onto the kernel stack.
Modern debuggers run in a separate process, and are not "intrusive". Back in 16-bit DOS days, without a multi-tasking protected-memory OS to give each task its own address space, debuggers would use the same stack as the program being debugged, between any two instructions while single-stepping.
#RossRidge points out that a debugger might want to let you call a function in the context of the current thread, e.g. with SetThreadContext. This would run with ESP/RSP just below the current value. This could obviously have side-effects for the process being debugged (intentional on the part of the user running the debugger), but clobbering local variables of the current function below ESP/RSP would be an undesirable and unexpected side-effect. (So compilers can't put them there.)
(In a calling convention with a red-zone below ESP/RSP, a debugger could respect that red-zone by decrementing ESP/RSP before making the function call.)
There are existing program that intentionally break when being debugged at all, and consider this a feature (to defend against efforts to reverse-engineer them).
Related: the x86-64 System V ABI (Linux, OS X, all other non-Windows systems) does define a red-zone for user-space code (64-bit only): 128 bytes below RSP that is guaranteed not to be asynchronously clobbered. Unix signal handlers can run asynchronously between any two user-space instructions, but the kernel respects the red-zone by leaving a 128 byte gap below the old user-space RSP, in case it was in use. With no signal handlers installed, you have an effectively unlimited red-zone even in 32-bit mode (where the ABI does not guarantee a red-zone). Compiler-generated code, or library code, of course can't assume that nothing else in the whole program (or in a library the program called) has installed a signal handler.
So the question becomes: is there anything on Windows that can asynchronously run code using the user-space stack between two arbitrary instructions? (i.e. any equivalent to a Unix signal handler.)
As far as we can tell, SEH (Structured Exception Handling) is the only real obstacle to what you propose for user-space code on current 32 and 64-bit Windows. (But future Windows could include a new feature.)
And I guess debugging if you happen ask your debugger to call a function in the target process/thread as mentioned above.
In this specific case, not touching any other memory other than the stack, or doing anything else that could fault, it's probably safe even from SEH.
SEH (Structured Exception Handling) lets user-space software have hardware exceptions like divide by zero delivered somewhat similarly to C++ exceptions. These are not truly asynchronous: they're for exceptions triggered by instructions you ran, not for events that happened to come after some random instruction.
But unlike normal exceptions, one thing a SEH handler can do is resume from where the exception occurred. (#RossRidge commented: SEH handlers are are initially called in the context of the unwound stack and can choose to ignore the exception and continue executing at the point where the exception occurred.)
So that's a problem even if there's no catch() clause in the current function.
Normally HW exceptions can only be triggered synchronously. e.g. by a div instruction, or by a memory access which could fault with STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION (the Windows equivalent of a Linux SIGSEGV segmentation fault). You control what instructions you use, so you can avoid instructions that might fault.
If you limit your code to only accessing stack memory between the store and reload, and you respect the stack-growth guard page, your program won't fault from accessing [esp-4]. (Unless you reached the max stack size (Stack Overflow), in which case push eax would fault, too, and you can't really recover from this situation because there's no stack space for SEH to use.)
So we can rule out STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION as a problem, because if we get that on accessing stack memory we're hosed anyway.
An SEH handler for STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR could run before any load instruction. Windows can page out any page it wants to, and transparently page it back in if it's needed again (virtual memory paging). But if there's an I/O error, your Windows attempts to let your process handle the failure by delivering a STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR
Again, if that happens to the current stack, we're hosed.
But code-fetch could cause STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR, and you could plausibly recover from that. But not by resuming execution at the place where the exception occurred (unless we can somehow remap that page to another copy in a highly fault-tolerant system??), so we might still be ok here.
An I/O error paging in the code that wants to read what we stored below ESP rules out any chance of reading it. If you weren't planning to do that anyway, you're fine. A generic SEH handler that doesn't know about this specific piece of code wouldn't be trying to do that anyway. I think usually a STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR would at most try to print an error message or maybe log something, not try to carry on whatever computation was happening.
Accessing other memory in between the store and reload to memory below ESP could trigger a STATUS_IN_PAGE_ERROR for that memory. In library code, you probably can't assume that some other pointer you passed isn't going to be weird and the caller is expecting to handle STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION or PAGE_ERROR for it.
Current compilers don't take advantage of space below ESP/RSP on Windows, even though they do take advantage of the red-zone in x86-64 System V (in leaf functions that need to spill / reload something, exactly like what you're doing for int -> x87.) That's because MS says it isn't safe, and they don't know whether SEH handlers exist that could try to resume after an SEH.
Things that you'd think might be a problem in current Windows, and why they're not:
The guard page stuff below ESP: as long as you don't go too far below the current ESP, you'll be touching the guard page and trigger allocation of more stack space instead of faulting. This is fine as long as the kernel doesn't check user-space ESP and find out that you're touching stack space without having "reserved" it first.
kernel reclaim of pages below ESP/RSP: apparently Windows doesn't currently do this. So using a lot of stack space once ever will keep those pages allocated for the rest of your process lifetime, unless you manually VirtualAlloc(MEM_RESET) them. (The kernel would be allowed to do this, though, because the docs say memory below RSP is volatile. The kernel could effectively zero it asynchronously if it wants to, copy-on-write mapping it to a zero page instead of writing it to the pagefile under memory pressure.)
APC (Asynchronous Procedure Calls): They can only be delivered when the process is in an "alertable state", which means only when inside a call to a function like SleepEx(0,1). calling a function already uses an unknown amount of space below E/RSP, so you already have to assume that every call clobbers everything below the stack pointer. Thus these "async" callbacks are not truly asynchronous with respect to normal execution the way Unix signal handlers are. (fun fact: POSIX async io does use signal handlers to run callbacks).
Console-application callbacks for ctrl-C and other events (SetConsoleCtrlHandler). This looks exactly like registering a Unix signal handler, but in Windows the handler runs in a separate thread with its own stack. (See RbMm's comment)
SetThreadContext: another thread could change our EIP/RIP asynchronously while this thread is suspended, but the whole program has to be written specially for that to make any sense. Unless it's a debugger using it. Correctness is normally not required when some other thread is messing around with your EIP unless the circumstances are very controlled.
And apparently there are no other ways that another process (or something this thread registered) can trigger execution of anything asynchronously with respect to the execution of user-space code on Windows.
If there are no SEH handlers that could try to resume, Windows more or less has a 4096 byte red-zone below ESP (or maybe more if you touch it incrementally?), but RbMm says nobody takes advantage of it in practice. This is unsurprising because MS says not to, and you can't always know if your callers might have done something with SEH.
Obviously anything that would synchronously clobber it (like a call) must also be avoided, again same as when using the red-zone in the x86-64 System V calling convention. (See https://stackoverflow.com/tags/red-zone/info for more about it.)
in general case (x86/x64 platform) - interrupt can be executed at any time, which overwrite memory bellow stack pointer (if it executed on current stack). because this, even temporary save something bellow stack pointer, not valid in kernel mode - interrupt will be use current kernel stack. but in user mode situation another - windows build interrupt table (IDT) suchwise that when interrupt raised - it will be always executed in kernel mode and in kernel stack. as result user mode stack (below stack pointer) will be not affected. and possible temporary use some stack space bellow it pointer, until you not do any functions calls. if exception will be (say by access invalid address) - also space bellow stack pointer will be overwritten - cpu exception of course begin executed in kernel mode and kernel stack, but than kernel execute callback in user space via ntdll.KiDispatchExecption already on current stack space. so in general this is valid in windows user mode (in current implementation), but you need good understand what you doing. however this is very rarely i think used
of course, how correct noted in comments that we can, in windows user mode, write below stack pointer - is just the current implementation behavior. this not documented or guaranteed.
but this is very fundamental - unlikely will be changed: interrupts always will be executed in privileged kernel mode only. and kernel mode will be use only kernel mode stack. the user mode context not trusted at all. what will be if user mode program set incorrect stack pointer ? say by
mov rsp,1 or mov esp,1 ? and just after this instruction interrupt will be raised. what will be if it begin executed on such invalid esp/rsp ? all operation system just crashed. exactly because this interrupt will be executed only on kernel stack. and not overwrite user stack space.
also need note that stack is limited space (even in user mode), access it bellow 1 page (4Kb)already error (need do stack probing page by page, for move guard page down).
and finally really there is no need usually access [ESP-4], EAX - in what problem decrement ESP first ? even if we need access stack space in loop huge count of time - decrement stack pointer need only once - 1 additional instruction (not in loop) nothing change in performance or code size.
so despite formal this is will be correct work in windows user mode, better (and not need) use this
of course formal documentation say:
Stack Usage
All memory beyond the current address of RSP is considered volatile
but this is for common case, including kernel mode too. i wrote about user mode and based on current implementation
possible in future windows and add "direct" apc or some "direct" signals - some code will be executed via callback just after thread enter to kernel (during usual hardware interrupt). after this all below esp will be undefined. but until this not exist. until this code will be work always(in current builds) correct.
In general (not specifically related to any OS); it's not safe to write below ESP if:
It's possible for the code to be interrupted and the interrupt handler will run at the same privilege level. Note: This is typically very unlikely for "user-space" code, but extremely likely for kernel code.
You call any other code (where either the call or the stack used by the called routine can trash the data you stored below ESP)
Something else depends on "normal" stack use. This can include signal handling, (language based) exception unwinding, debuggers, "stack smashing protector"
It's safe to write below ESP if it's not "not safe".
Note that for 64-bit code, writing below RSP is built into the x86-64 ABI ("red zone"); and is made safe by support for it in tool chains/compilers and everything else.
When a thread gets created, Windows reserves a contiguous region of virtual memory of a configurable size (the default is 1 MB) for the thread's stack. Initially, the stack looks like this (the stack grows downwards):
--------------
| committed |
--------------
| guard page |
--------------
| . |
| reserved |
| . |
| . |
| |
--------------
ESP will be pointing somewhere inside the committed page. The guard page is used to support automatic stack growth. The reserved pages region ensures that the requested stack size is available in virtual memory.
Consider the two instructions from the question:
MOV [ESP-4], EAX
FLD [ESP-4]
There are three possibilities:
The first instruction executes successfully. There is nothing that uses the user-mode stack that can execute between the two instructions. So the second instruction will use the correct value (#RbMm stated this in the comments under his answer and I agree).
The first instruction raises an exception and an exception handler does not return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION. As long as the second instruction is immediately after the first one (it is not in the exception handler or placed after it), then the second instruction will not execute. So you're still safe. Execution continues from stack frame where the exception handler exists.
The first instruction raises an exception and an exception handler returns EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION. Execution continues from the same instruction that raised the exception (potentially with a context modified by the handler). In this particular example, the first will be re-executed to write a value below ESP. No problem. If the second instruction raised an exception or there are more than two instructions, then the exception might occur a place after a value is written below ESP. When the exception handler gets called, it may overwrite the value and then return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION. But when execution resumes, the value written is assumed to still be there, but it's not anymore. This is a situation where it's not safe to write below ESP. This applies even if all of the instructions are placed consecutively. Thanks to #RaymondChen for pointing this out.
In general, if the two instructions are not placed back-to-back, if you are writing to locations beyond ESP, there is no guarantee that the written values won't get corrupted or overwritten. One case that I can think of where this might happen is structured exception handling (SEH). If a hardware-defined exception (such as divide by zero) occurs, the kernel exception handler will be invoked (KiUserExceptionDispatcher) in kernel-mode, which will invoke the user-mode side of the handler (RtlDispatchException). When switching from user-mode to kernel-mode and then back to user-mode, whatever value was in ESP will be saved and restored. However, the user-mode handler itself uses the user-mode stack and will iterate over a registered list of exception handlers, each of which uses the user-mode stack. These functions will modify ESP as required. This may lead to losing the values you've written beyond ESP. A similar situation occurs when using software-define exceptions (throw in VC++).
I think you can deal with this by registering your own exception handler before any other exception handlers (so that it is called first). When your handler gets called, you can save your data beyond ESP elsewhere. Later, during unwinding, you get the cleanup opportunity to restore your data to the same location (or any other location) on the stack.
You need also to similarly watch out for asynchronous procedure calls (APCs) and callbacks.
Several answers here mention APCs (Asynchronous Procedure Calls), saying that they can only be delivered when the process is in an "alertable state", and are not truly asynchronous with respect to normal execution the way Unix signal handlers are
Windows 10 version 1809 introduces Special User APCs, which can fire at any moment just like Unix signals. See this article for low level details.
The Special User APC is a mechanism that was added in RS5 (and exposed through NtQueueApcThreadEx), but lately (in an insider build) was exposed through a new syscall - NtQueueApcThreadEx2. If this type of APC is used, the thread is signaled in the middle of the execution to execute the special APC.
I implemented a new system call as an intro exercise. All it does is take in a buffer and printk that buffer. I later learned that the correct practice would be to use copy_from_user.
Is this just a precautionary measure to validate the address, or is my system call causing some error (page fault?) that I cannot see?
If it is just a precautionary measure, what is it protecting against?
Thanks!
There are several reasons.
Some architectures employ segmented memory, where there is a separate segment for the user memory. In that case, copy_from_user is essential to actually get the right memory address.
The kernel has access to everything, including (almost by definition) a lot of privileged information. Not using copy_from_user could allow information disclosure if a user passes in a kernel address. Worse, if you are writing to a user-supplied buffer without copy_to_user, the user could overwrite kernel memory.
You'd like to prevent the user from crashing the kernel module just by passing in a bad pointer; using copy_from_user protects against faults so e.g. a system call handler can return EFAULT in response to a bad user pointer.
I am trying to share memory between user space and kernel space in windows xp.I want to write into the memory in user level and reading it from the kernel driver program.Is there any available in-build function?
User mode side: There are a couple of ways.
1) The most common / flexible way is to use DeviceIOControl to communicate between user mode and kernel mode, including passing memory.
It's been a long time (six years? XP timeframe) since I wrote my last kernel driver, so this is an overview of the process not exact code. However, your user mode program should be able to obtain a handle to your 'device' or an open instance of your driver working on something by using CreateFile and specifying its name, such as \\.\YourNameHere for example. Use that handle to communicate with it (the first parameter to DeviceIOControl.)
The four parameters you will be interested in are:
__in_opt LPVOID lpInBuffer,
__in DWORD nInBufferSize,
__out_opt LPVOID lpOutBuffer,
__in DWORD nOutBufferSize,
__out_opt LPDWORD lpBytesReturned,
Using these, you can give data to the driver (through the lpInBuffer pointer and nInBufferSize parameter specifying how big it is - what this data is or how to interpret it is up to your driver) and the kernel-mode layer can give data back through lpOutBuffer (a pointer to memory you, in user mode, have already allocated - this is not a pointer that the driver sets!), its size in bytes in nOutBufferSize (again you know this, since you in user mode allocate this buffer) and then the driver will tell you how much of that buffer it actually filled with lpBytesReturned.
This Wikipedia article describes the general concept of ioctl functions, of which DeviceIOControl is an example.
Note: You said "I am trying to share memory between user space and kernel space in windows". This is not exactly shared memory - it's not memory that both user mode and kernel mode are reading from or writing to at the same time, for example. It is memory where, for the duration of the DeviceIOControl function call, kernel mode has access to your user mode-allocated memory for which you pass it pointers (although from memory it's slightly more complicated than that, but that's the effect.) Ie it's only 'shared' while you call that method.
2) Another alternative is to use ReadFile and WriteFile if you only need simple data transfer and the kernel driver accepts it. It doesn't allow you to have two-way communication quite as DeviceIOControl does (where you give the driver data and it gives you something back with an error code) but it's simple and you're probably already familiar with those APIs.
Kernel mode side: Are you writing the kernel driver as well? If so, this article has information about implementing the kernel-mode side of IOCTL. This article series also describes allowing user mode to use ReadFile and WriteFile to communicate if you choose that methods.
Is there a way in Windows/Linux or any other operating system to know at instruction-level, if a memory access generated a Page Fault? The code I'm imagining about would look something like this:
Buffer *buffer = new Buffer();
...Do something with the buffer...
if(thisProcess.generatedPageFault) {
...Do something...
}
...Do something else with the buffer...
if(thisProcess.generatedPageFault) {
...Do something...
}
For linux the closest thing you'll get is reading /proc/self/stat and parse out the
no. of pagefaults before and after your calls - the format is described here: http://linux.die.net/man/5/proc
Keep in mind, reading/parsing that file could itself cause pagefaults - atleast the 1. time you do it, of if you allocate memory to read it (like calling fopen)
Accordingly to the Intel documentation for the x86 processor - a page fault is Interrupt 14. The kernel at a low level would have an interrupt handler set up to trap that page fault. When that occurs, the kernel's interrupt handler handles the situation accordingly.
Now, since this is at the nuts and bolts level, and residing in ring 0 code, I would not think you can actually monitor that...you may get around that by creating a driver to simply watch for a page fault (again, dependent on the OS privileges and internal data structures occupied by the kernel), and pass the information back out to user-land space... I doubt if that would be easily exposable...
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Tom.