From: dave.long@linaro.org (David Long)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] arm64: Improve kprobes test for atomic sequence
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:53:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D60AA7.6010304@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160910144841.1bbbffd8548128146df11a41@kernel.org>
On 09/10/2016 01:48 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:26:09 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
>>
>> Kprobes searches backwards a finite number of instructions to determine if
>> there is an attempt to probe a load/store exclusive sequence. It stops when
>> it hits the maximum number of instructions or a load or store exclusive.
>> However this means it can run up past the beginning of the function and
>> start looking at literal constants. This has been shown to cause a false
>> positive and blocks insertion of the probe. To fix this, further limit the
>> backwards search to stop if it hits a symbol address from kallsyms. The
>> presumption is that this is the entry point to this code (particularly for
>> the common case of placing probes at the beginning of functions).
>>
>> This also improves efficiency by not searching code that is not part of the
>> function. There may be some possibility that the label might not denote the
>> entry path to the probed instruction but the likelihood seems low and this
>> is just another example of how the kprobes user really needs to be
>> careful about what they are doing.
>
> Of course user should be careful, but also, in such case, kernel can reject
> to probe it.
>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm just saying when everything
goes right we still cannot promise perfection in detecting a probe
within an atomic sequence. This patch will reject a probe that is after
a ldx and has no intervening kallsyms label (and assuming it's within
the defined maximum count of subsequent instructions).
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
>> index 37e47a9..a691112 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <linux/kprobes.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/kallsyms.h>
>> #include <asm/kprobes.h>
>> #include <asm/insn.h>
>> #include <asm/sections.h>
>> @@ -122,7 +123,7 @@ arm_probe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
>> static bool __kprobes
>> is_probed_address_atomic(kprobe_opcode_t *scan_start, kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end)
>> {
>> - while (scan_start > scan_end) {
>> + while (scan_start >= scan_end) {
>> /*
>> * atomic region starts from exclusive load and ends with
>> * exclusive store.
>> @@ -142,33 +143,30 @@ arm_kprobe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *addr, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
>> {
>> enum kprobe_insn decoded;
>> kprobe_opcode_t insn = le32_to_cpu(*addr);
>> - kprobe_opcode_t *scan_start = addr - 1;
>> - kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end = addr - MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE;
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(MODULES_VADDR)
>> - struct module *mod;
>> -#endif
>> -
>> - if (addr >= (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text &&
>> - scan_end < (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text)
>> - scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text;
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(MODULES_VADDR)
>> - else {
>> - preempt_disable();
>> - mod = __module_address((unsigned long)addr);
>> - if (mod && within_module_init((unsigned long)addr, mod) &&
>> - !within_module_init((unsigned long)scan_end, mod))
>> - scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)mod->init_layout.base;
>> - else if (mod && within_module_core((unsigned long)addr, mod) &&
>> - !within_module_core((unsigned long)scan_end, mod))
>> - scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)mod->core_layout.base;
>> - preempt_enable();
>> + kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end = 0;
>
> Please use NULL for pointer.
>
A change has been made for v4.
>> + unsigned long size = 0, offset = 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If there's a symbol defined in front of and near enough to
>> + * the probe address assume it is the entry point to this
>> + * code and use it to further limit how far back we search
>> + * when determining if we're in an atomic sequence. If we could
>> + * not find any symbol skip the atomic test altogether as we
>> + * could otherwise end up searching irrelevant text/literals.
>> + * KPROBES depends on KALLSYMS so this last case should never
>> + * happen.
>> + */
>> + if (kallsyms_lookup_size_offset((unsigned long) addr, &size, &offset)) {
>> + if (offset < (MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE*sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)))
>> + scan_end = addr - (offset / sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
>> + else
>> + scan_end = addr - MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE;
>
> } else
> return INSN_REJECTED;
>
> that is what I expected...
>
> Thank you,
>
>> }
>> -#endif
>> decoded = arm_probe_decode_insn(insn, asi);
>>
>> - if (decoded == INSN_REJECTED ||
>> - is_probed_address_atomic(scan_start, scan_end))
>> - return INSN_REJECTED;
>> + if (decoded != INSN_REJECTED && scan_end)
>> + if (is_probed_address_atomic(addr - 1, scan_end))
>> + return INSN_REJECTED;
>>
>> return decoded;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>
>
Thanks,
-dl
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com>,
William Cohen <wcohen@redhat.com>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: Improve kprobes test for atomic sequence
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:53:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D60AA7.6010304@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160910144841.1bbbffd8548128146df11a41@kernel.org>
On 09/10/2016 01:48 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:26:09 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
>>
>> Kprobes searches backwards a finite number of instructions to determine if
>> there is an attempt to probe a load/store exclusive sequence. It stops when
>> it hits the maximum number of instructions or a load or store exclusive.
>> However this means it can run up past the beginning of the function and
>> start looking at literal constants. This has been shown to cause a false
>> positive and blocks insertion of the probe. To fix this, further limit the
>> backwards search to stop if it hits a symbol address from kallsyms. The
>> presumption is that this is the entry point to this code (particularly for
>> the common case of placing probes at the beginning of functions).
>>
>> This also improves efficiency by not searching code that is not part of the
>> function. There may be some possibility that the label might not denote the
>> entry path to the probed instruction but the likelihood seems low and this
>> is just another example of how the kprobes user really needs to be
>> careful about what they are doing.
>
> Of course user should be careful, but also, in such case, kernel can reject
> to probe it.
>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm just saying when everything
goes right we still cannot promise perfection in detecting a probe
within an atomic sequence. This patch will reject a probe that is after
a ldx and has no intervening kallsyms label (and assuming it's within
the defined maximum count of subsequent instructions).
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
>> index 37e47a9..a691112 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/decode-insn.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <linux/kprobes.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/kallsyms.h>
>> #include <asm/kprobes.h>
>> #include <asm/insn.h>
>> #include <asm/sections.h>
>> @@ -122,7 +123,7 @@ arm_probe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
>> static bool __kprobes
>> is_probed_address_atomic(kprobe_opcode_t *scan_start, kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end)
>> {
>> - while (scan_start > scan_end) {
>> + while (scan_start >= scan_end) {
>> /*
>> * atomic region starts from exclusive load and ends with
>> * exclusive store.
>> @@ -142,33 +143,30 @@ arm_kprobe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *addr, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
>> {
>> enum kprobe_insn decoded;
>> kprobe_opcode_t insn = le32_to_cpu(*addr);
>> - kprobe_opcode_t *scan_start = addr - 1;
>> - kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end = addr - MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE;
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(MODULES_VADDR)
>> - struct module *mod;
>> -#endif
>> -
>> - if (addr >= (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text &&
>> - scan_end < (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text)
>> - scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text;
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(MODULES_VADDR)
>> - else {
>> - preempt_disable();
>> - mod = __module_address((unsigned long)addr);
>> - if (mod && within_module_init((unsigned long)addr, mod) &&
>> - !within_module_init((unsigned long)scan_end, mod))
>> - scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)mod->init_layout.base;
>> - else if (mod && within_module_core((unsigned long)addr, mod) &&
>> - !within_module_core((unsigned long)scan_end, mod))
>> - scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)mod->core_layout.base;
>> - preempt_enable();
>> + kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end = 0;
>
> Please use NULL for pointer.
>
A change has been made for v4.
>> + unsigned long size = 0, offset = 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If there's a symbol defined in front of and near enough to
>> + * the probe address assume it is the entry point to this
>> + * code and use it to further limit how far back we search
>> + * when determining if we're in an atomic sequence. If we could
>> + * not find any symbol skip the atomic test altogether as we
>> + * could otherwise end up searching irrelevant text/literals.
>> + * KPROBES depends on KALLSYMS so this last case should never
>> + * happen.
>> + */
>> + if (kallsyms_lookup_size_offset((unsigned long) addr, &size, &offset)) {
>> + if (offset < (MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE*sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)))
>> + scan_end = addr - (offset / sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
>> + else
>> + scan_end = addr - MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE;
>
> } else
> return INSN_REJECTED;
>
> that is what I expected...
>
> Thank you,
>
>> }
>> -#endif
>> decoded = arm_probe_decode_insn(insn, asi);
>>
>> - if (decoded == INSN_REJECTED ||
>> - is_probed_address_atomic(scan_start, scan_end))
>> - return INSN_REJECTED;
>> + if (decoded != INSN_REJECTED && scan_end)
>> + if (is_probed_address_atomic(addr - 1, scan_end))
>> + return INSN_REJECTED;
>>
>> return decoded;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>
>
Thanks,
-dl
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-12 1:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-09 19:26 [PATCH v3] arm64: Improve kprobes test for atomic sequence David Long
2016-09-09 19:26 ` David Long
2016-09-10 5:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2016-09-10 5:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2016-09-12 1:53 ` David Long [this message]
2016-09-12 1:53 ` David Long
2016-09-12 16:29 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2016-09-12 16:29 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2016-09-12 18:19 ` David Long
2016-09-12 18:19 ` David Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57D60AA7.6010304@linaro.org \
--to=dave.long@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.