Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia@transsion.com>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Pu Hu <hupu@transsion.com>
Cc: Jiazi Li <jiazi.li@transsion.com>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"naveen@kernel.org" <naveen@kernel.org>,
	"yang@os.amperecomputing.com" <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] arm64: kprobes: Do not handle non-XOL faults as kprobe faults
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 05:57:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8cc07468-804e-4ee1-acad-77bc99af74c6@transsion.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260708094623.9a1d40bed37bce3c7969ad20@kernel.org>

Hi Masami,

On 7/8/2026 8:46 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 08:36:48 +0000
> Pu Hu <hupu@transsion.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Pu Hu <hupu@transsion.com>
>>
>> kprobe_fault_handler() handles faults taken while kprobes is in
>> KPROBE_HIT_SS or KPROBE_REENTER state as faults caused by the
>> single-stepped instruction.
>>
>> That assumption is not always true. While a kprobe is preparing or
>> executing the out-of-line single-step instruction, other code may run
>> in that window. For example, perf or trace code can be invoked from the
>> debug exception path and may take a fault of its own. In that case the
>> fault did not happen on the kprobe XOL instruction, but the kprobe fault
>> handler may still try to recover it as a kprobe single-step fault.
>>
>> This can corrupt the exception recovery flow and leave the real fault to
>> be handled with a wrong PC. A typical reproducer is running simpleperf
>> with preemptirq tracepoints and dwarf callchains while a kprobe is
>> installed on a frequently executed kernel function.
>>
>> Fix this by handling faults in KPROBE_HIT_SS/KPROBE_REENTER only when
>> the faulting PC points at the current kprobe's XOL instruction. Faults
>> from any other PC are left to the normal fault handling path.
>>
>> This follows the same idea as the x86 fix in commit 6381c24cd6d5
>> ("kprobes/x86: Fix page-fault handling logic").
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Hu <hupu@transsion.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia@transsion.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
>> index 43a0361a8bf0..e4d2852ce2fb 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
>> @@ -285,6 +285,20 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr)
>>        switch (kcb->kprobe_status) {
>>        case KPROBE_HIT_SS:
>>        case KPROBE_REENTER:
>> +             /*
>> +              * A fault taken while a kprobe is single-stepping is not
>> +              * necessarily caused by the instruction in the XOL slot. For
>> +              * example, tracing or perf code running in this window may take
>> +              * an unrelated fault.
>> +              *
>> +              * Handle the fault here only when the faulting PC is the XOL
>> +              * instruction of the current kprobe. Otherwise let the normal
>> +              * fault handling path deal with it.
>> +              */
>> +             if (cur->ainsn.xol_insn &&
>> +                     instruction_pointer(regs) != (unsigned long)cur->ainsn.xol_insn)
>> +                     break;
>
> Can you check Sashiko's comments[1]?
>
> [1] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260706083636.159883-1-hupu%40transsion.com?part=1
>
> It seems that it complains about simulated kprobe's case.
> In that case, cur->ainsn.xol_insn == NULL. The simulation should be done
> in the kprobe context (which is a debug trap). I'm not sure the arm64
> can cause NMI in that context, but if it happens and causes a fault,
> it may cause a problem.
>
> So I think we can just ignore the fault on the simulated kprobes.
>
> To ensure that, you can just add:
>
>          if (cur && !cur->ainsn.xol_insn)
>                  return 0;
>
> at the entry of this function. (and remove redundant cur->ainsn.xol_insn check)

Right, both cases:

1. single-step XOL
2. simulated

have this problem and this patch fixed 1. 2 remains unchanged.

Ideally we should fix both, but the simulated case seems more
complicated, and at least we didn't make things worse for 2. So I wonder
if we can analyze 2 more thoroughly and fix it in a separate patch.

> Thank you,
>
>> +
>>                /*
>>                 * We are here because the instruction being single
>>                 * stepped caused a page fault. We reset the current
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>


  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-08  5:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-01 12:14 [RFC 0/2] arm64: kprobes: Fix single-step fault and reentry handling Pu Hu
2026-07-01 12:30 ` Pu Hu
2026-07-01 13:43 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2026-07-01 13:56   ` Pu Hu
2026-07-02 10:07     ` Pu Hu
2026-07-02 10:09       ` Pu Hu
2026-07-04 14:47         ` Masami Hiramatsu
     [not found]           ` <20260706083636.159883-1-hupu@transsion.com>
     [not found]             ` <20260706083636.159883-2-hupu@transsion.com>
2026-07-08  0:46               ` [RFC 1/3] arm64: kprobes: Do not handle non-XOL faults as kprobe faults Masami Hiramatsu
2026-07-08  5:57                 ` Hongyan Xia [this message]
2026-07-08  7:42                   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2026-07-08  8:55                     ` Hongyan Xia
     [not found]             ` <20260706083636.159883-3-hupu@transsion.com>
2026-07-08  0:54               ` [RFC 2/3] arm64: kprobes: Allow reentering kprobes while single-stepping Masami Hiramatsu
2026-07-08  7:12                 ` Hongyan Xia
2026-07-08  0:55             ` [RFC 0/3] arm64: kprobes: Fix single-step fault and reentry handling Masami Hiramatsu

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=8cc07468-804e-4ee1-acad-77bc99af74c6@transsion.com \
    --to=hongyan.xia@transsion.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hupu@transsion.com \
    --cc=jiazi.li@transsion.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=naveen@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
    /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