Re: [PATCH] uprobe: Add uprobe_pre/post_sstep_notifier to NOKPROBE_SYMBOL

[Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:05:34 +0530
Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Masami,
> >
> > On 03/08/2016:12:45:24 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> On Tue,  2 Aug 2016 12:14:06 +0530
> >> Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > uprobe_pre_sstep_notifier and uprobe_post_sstep_notifier are called from
> >> > debug exception handler, so blacklist them for kprobing.
> >>
> >> Actually, these exception notifers are kicked only if the debug exception
> >> is not related to kprobes (at least on x86). In that case, we don't have
> >> to take care about that. Or, would you hit any problem on it?
> >
> > Well, I have faced issue on ARM64. So, if I have a kprobe instrumented at these
> > functions and then if I hit a uprobe then kernel goes into an infinite loop of
> > "Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1".
> >
> > On x86 I have not tested, but I see that all functions except
> > arch_uprobe_exception_notify() in the call stack of
> > uprobe_pre/post_sstep_notifier() are blacklisted for kprobe. So, I am unable to
> > understand that why arch_uprobe_exception_notify() and
> > uprobe_pre/post_sstep_notifier() are not blacklisted.
> >
> >>
> >> IOW, where do we have to prohibit kprobes are, the code path from where
> >> right after the breakpoint (debug) exception is occurred, to where right
> >> before the kprobe is handled. After that, it should be safe.
> >
> > Hummmm...My understanding was that if a function a() is not good to be kprobed
> > then we can not kprobe any function called by a() as well. Thanks for the
> > clarification. So, if I go with your definition then, something is still wrong on
> > ARM64 which is causing issue when I kprobe uprobe_pre/post_sstep_notifier().
> 
> I found that one modification in ARM64 kprobe code allows me to kprobe
> uprobe_pre/post_sstep_notifier(). So, taking back this patch. Will
> discuss ARM64 modification on arm mailing list.

OK, so that will be ARM64 specific issue. We'd better to trace it.
Thank you for your effort!!


> 
> Thanks Masami for your input.
> 
> ~Pratyush


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>