From: wcohen@redhat.com (William Cohen)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v6 0/6] arm64: Add kernel probes (kprobes) support
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 23:14:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55498712.2060003@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55492FF1.6040907@redhat.com>
On 05/05/2015 05:02 PM, William Cohen wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 11:48 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 06:14:51AM +0100, David Long wrote:
>>> On 05/01/15 21:44, William Cohen wrote:
>>>> Dave Long and I did some additional experimentation to better
>>>> understand what is condition causes the kernel to sometimes spew:
>>>>
>>>> Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1
>>>>
>>>> The functioncallcount.stp test instruments the entry and return of
>>>> every function in the mm files, including kfree. In most cases the
>>>> arm64 trampoline_probe_handler just determines which return probe
>>>> instance matches the current conditions, runs the associated handler,
>>>> and recycles the return probe instance for another use by placing it
>>>> on a hlist. However, it is possible that a return probe instance has
>>>> been set up on function entry and the return probe is unregistered
>>>> before the return probe instance fires. In this case kfree is called
>>>> by the trampoline handler to remove the return probe instances related
>>>> to the unregistered kretprobe. This case where the the kprobed kfree
>>>> is called within the arm64 trampoline_probe_handler function trigger
>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>> The kprobe breakpoint for the kfree call from within the
>>>> trampoline_probe_handler is encountered and started, but things go
>>>> wrong when attempting the single step on the instruction.
>>>>
>>>> It took a while to trigger this problem with the sytemtap testsuite.
>>>> Dave Long came up with steps that reproduce this more quickly with a
>>>> probed function that is always called within the trampoline handler.
>>>> Trying the same on x86_64 doesn't trigger the problem. It appears
>>>> that the x86_64 code can handle a single step from within the
>>>> trampoline_handler.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm assuming there are no plans for supporting software breakpoint debug
>>> exceptions during processing of single-step exceptions, any time soon on
>>> arm64. Given that the only solution that I can come with for this is
>>> instead of making this orphaned kretprobe instance list exist only
>>> temporarily (in the scope of the kretprobe trampoline handler), make it
>>> always exist and kfree any items found on it as part of a periodic
>>> cleanup running outside of the handler context. I think these changes
>>> would still all be in archiecture-specific code. This doesn't feel to
>>> me like a bad solution. Does anyone think there is a simpler way out of
>>> this?
>>
>> Just to clarify, is the problem here the software breakpoint exception,
>> or trying to step the faulting instruction whilst we were already handling
>> a step?
>>
>> I think I'd be inclined to keep the code run in debug context to a minimum.
>> We already can't block there, and the more code we add the more black spots
>> we end up with in the kernel itself. The alternative would be to make your
>> kprobes code re-entrant, but that sounds like a nightmare.
>>
>> You say this works on x86. How do they handle it? Is the nested probe
>> on kfree ignored or handled?
>>
>> Will
>>
>
> Hi Dave and Will,
>
> The attached patch attempts to eliminate the need for the breakpoint in the trampoline. It is modeled after the x86_64 code and just saves the register state, calls the trampoline handler, and then fixes the return address. The code compiles, but I have NOT verified that it works. It looks feasible to do things this way. In addition to avoiding the possible issue with a kretprobe on kfree it would also make the kretprobes faster because it would avoid the breakpoint exception and the associated kprobe handling in the trampoline.
>
> -Will
>
Hi Dave and Will,
Attached is a revised version of the patch to avoid using a kprobe breakpoint in the trampoline. It shows signs of working, but is still a work in progress.
-Will Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: avoid_bkpt_tramp.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4583 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150505/42530767/attachment.bin>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-06 3:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-20 20:19 [PATCH v6 0/6] arm64: Add kernel probes (kprobes) support David Long
2015-04-20 20:19 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] arm64: Add HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API feature David Long
2015-05-20 13:39 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-21 3:29 ` David Long
2015-05-21 17:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-22 17:05 ` David Long
2015-04-20 20:19 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] arm64: Add more test functions to insn.c David Long
2015-04-20 20:19 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support David Long
2015-05-20 16:39 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-21 4:44 ` David Long
2015-05-22 11:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-22 15:49 ` William Cohen
2015-05-22 16:54 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-22 16:57 ` David Long
2015-04-20 20:19 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] arm64: kprobes instruction simulation support David Long
2015-04-20 20:19 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] arm64: Add kernel return probes support (kretprobes) David Long
2015-04-20 20:19 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] kprobes: Add arm64 case in kprobe example module David Long
2015-04-21 11:42 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] arm64: Add kernel probes (kprobes) support Masami Hiramatsu
2015-04-21 14:07 ` William Cohen
2015-04-24 21:14 ` William Cohen
2015-04-28 2:58 ` William Cohen
2015-04-29 10:23 ` Will Deacon
2015-05-02 1:44 ` William Cohen
2015-05-05 5:14 ` David Long
2015-05-05 15:48 ` Will Deacon
2015-05-05 16:18 ` William Cohen
2015-05-05 21:02 ` William Cohen
2015-05-06 3:14 ` William Cohen [this message]
2015-05-12 5:54 ` David Long
2015-05-12 12:48 ` William Cohen
2015-05-13 9:22 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-05-13 15:41 ` William Cohen
2015-05-13 19:58 ` David Long
2015-05-13 20:35 ` William Cohen
2015-05-14 0:01 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-05-14 3:48 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2015-04-29 4:33 ` 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=55498712.2060003@redhat.com \
--to=wcohen@redhat.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).