From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v14 03/12] kprobes: checks probe address is
	instruction boudary on x86
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:46:29 +0200
Message-ID: <20090819004627.GH5231@nowhere>
References: <20090813203403.31965.20973.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090813203428.31965.21939.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090818230340.GF5231@nowhere> <4A8B3693.9000301@redhat.com> <20090818234341.GG5231@nowhere> <4A8B4515.3090508@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	systemtap <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	DLE <dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>,
	"K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	=?utf-8?B?UHJ6ZW15c8WCYXdQYXdlxYJjenlr?= <przemyslaw@pawelczyk.it>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751285AbZHSAqe@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A8B4515.3090508@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 08:19:33PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:17:39PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>>> +	while (addr < paddr) {
> >>>> +		kernel_insn_init(&insn, (void *)addr);
> >>>> +		insn_get_opcode(&insn);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		/* Check if the instruction has been modified. */
> >>>> +		if (insn.opcode.bytes[0] == BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
> >>>> +			ret = recover_probed_instruction(buf, addr);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm confused about the reason of this recovering. Is it to remove
> >>> kprobes behind the current setting one in the current function?
> >>
> >> No, it recovers just an instruction which is probed by a kprobe,
> >> because we need to know the first byte of this instruction for
> >> decoding it.
> 
> Ah, sorry, it was not accurate. the function recovers an instruction
> on the buffer(buf), not on the real kernel text. :)



Ah ok. I'll just add a small comment about that then, and apply
it.


 
> >>
> >> Perhaps we'd better to have more generic interface (text_peek?)
> >> for it because another subsystem (e.g. kgdb) may want to insert int3...
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> > 
> > 
> > Aah, I see now, it's to keep a sane check of the instructions
> > boundaries without int 3 artifacts in the middle.
> > 
> > But in that case, you should re-arm the breakpoint after your
> > check, right?
> > 
> > Or may be you could do the check without repatching?
> 
> Yes, it doesn't modify kernel text, just recover an original
> instruction from kernel text and backup byte on a buffer.


Ok.


> > May be by doing a copy of insn.opcode.bytes and replacing bytes[0]
> > with what a random kprobe has stolen?
> 
> Hm, no, this function is protected from other kprobes by kprobe_mutex.
> 
> Thank you,



Right, thanks!



> -- 
> Masami Hiramatsu
> 
> Software Engineer
> Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
> Software Solutions Division
> 
> e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com
>