Linux Kernel Selftest development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mhiramat at kernel.org (Masami Hiramatsu)
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] x86/kprobes: Fix frame pointer annotations
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 09:52:54 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190511095254.21d41a8db0d66669d51144cc@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190510123131.GU2589@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:31:31 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:58:31PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 May 2019 19:14:16 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Ideally also the optimized kprobe trampoline, but I've not managed to
> > > fully comprehend that one.
> > 
> > As you pointed in other reply, save/restore can be a macro, but
> > each trampoline code is slightly different. Optprobe template has
> > below parts
> > 
> > (jumped from probed address)
> > [store regs]
> > [setup function arguments (pt_regs and probed address)]
> > [handler call]
> > [restore regs]
> > [execute copied instruction]
> 
>  instruction_s_ ?

Yes.

> 
> The JMP to this trampoline is likely 5 bytes and could have clobbered
> multiple instructions, we'd then have to place them all here, and
> 
> > [jump back to probed address]
> 
> jump to after whatever instructions were clobbered by the JMP.

Right!

> > Note that there is a limitation that if it is optiomized probe, user
> > handler can not change regs->ip. (we can not use "ret" after executed
> > a copied instruction, which must run on same stack)
> 
> Changing regs->ip in this case is going to be massively dodgy indeed :-)
> But so would changing much else; changing stack layout would also be
> somewhat tricky.

Yes, so the stack must be same after [restore regs].

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at kernel.org>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mhiramat@kernel.org (Masami Hiramatsu)
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] x86/kprobes: Fix frame pointer annotations
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 09:52:54 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190511095254.21d41a8db0d66669d51144cc@kernel.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190511005254.Wjrw2ASOQnbAN-U4hv1axfexRltk2xx-m2iqRfPZlKE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190510123131.GU2589@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:31:31 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2019@01:58:31PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 May 2019 19:14:16 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Ideally also the optimized kprobe trampoline, but I've not managed to
> > > fully comprehend that one.
> > 
> > As you pointed in other reply, save/restore can be a macro, but
> > each trampoline code is slightly different. Optprobe template has
> > below parts
> > 
> > (jumped from probed address)
> > [store regs]
> > [setup function arguments (pt_regs and probed address)]
> > [handler call]
> > [restore regs]
> > [execute copied instruction]
> 
>  instruction_s_ ?

Yes.

> 
> The JMP to this trampoline is likely 5 bytes and could have clobbered
> multiple instructions, we'd then have to place them all here, and
> 
> > [jump back to probed address]
> 
> jump to after whatever instructions were clobbered by the JMP.

Right!

> > Note that there is a limitation that if it is optiomized probe, user
> > handler can not change regs->ip. (we can not use "ret" after executed
> > a copied instruction, which must run on same stack)
> 
> Changing regs->ip in this case is going to be massively dodgy indeed :-)
> But so would changing much else; changing stack layout would also be
> somewhat tricky.

Yes, so the stack must be same after [restore regs].

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at kernel.org>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-05-11  0:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-08  7:49 [PATCH 0/4] x86: int3 fallout peterz
2019-05-08  7:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-08  7:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86/entry/32: Clean up return from interrupt preemption path peterz
2019-05-08  7:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-08  7:49 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86/kprobes: Fix frame pointer annotations peterz
2019-05-08  7:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-08 11:54   ` jpoimboe
2019-05-08 11:54     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-08 12:04     ` peterz
2019-05-08 12:04       ` Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]       ` <20190508124248.u5ukpbhnh4wpiccq@treble>
     [not found]         ` <20190508153907.GM2589@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
2019-05-08 18:48           ` jpoimboe
2019-05-08 18:48             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-09  1:20             ` mhiramat
2019-05-09  1:20               ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-09  8:14               ` peterz
2019-05-09  8:14                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-09  9:27                 ` peterz
2019-05-09  9:27                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-09 14:00                 ` jpoimboe
2019-05-09 14:00                   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-09 14:01                 ` mhiramat
2019-05-09 14:01                   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-09 17:14                   ` peterz
2019-05-09 17:14                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-10  4:58                     ` mhiramat
2019-05-10  4:58                       ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-10 12:31                       ` peterz
2019-05-10 12:31                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-11  0:52                         ` mhiramat [this message]
2019-05-11  0:52                           ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-10 12:40                       ` peterz
2019-05-10 12:40                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-11  0:56                         ` mhiramat
2019-05-11  0:56                           ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-13  8:15                           ` peterz
2019-05-13  8:15                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-09 16:20                 ` luto
2019-05-09 16:20                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-09 17:18                   ` peterz
2019-05-09 17:18                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-09 17:43                   ` rostedt
2019-05-09 17:43                     ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-10  3:21                     ` mhiramat
2019-05-10  3:21                       ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-10 12:14                       ` peterz
2019-05-10 12:14                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-10 12:17                       ` peterz
2019-05-10 12:17                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-10 14:54                         ` rostedt
2019-05-10 14:54                           ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-09 17:37                 ` rostedt
2019-05-09 17:37                   ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-09 18:26                   ` peterz
2019-05-09 18:26                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-09 18:36                     ` rostedt
2019-05-09 18:36                       ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-08  7:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86/ftrace: Add pt_regs frame annotations peterz
2019-05-08  7:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-08  7:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/4] x86_32: Provide consistent pt_regs peterz
2019-05-08  7:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-08 11:57   ` jpoimboe
2019-05-08 11:57     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-08 20:58   ` torvalds
2019-05-08 20:58     ` Linus Torvalds

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=20190511095254.21d41a8db0d66669d51144cc@kernel.org \
    --to=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.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