From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5356C433DB for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1179B64E12 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:51:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1179B64E12 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=csgroup.eu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Drnjp2PnXz3d3V for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:51:42 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=csgroup.eu (client-ip=93.17.236.30; helo=pegase1.c-s.fr; envelope-from=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu; receiver=) Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr (pegase1.c-s.fr [93.17.236.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DrnjR2ghqz30HP for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:51:20 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost (mailhub1-int [192.168.12.234]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DrnjG6PdJz9v1rj; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([192.168.12.234]) by localhost (pegase1.c-s.fr [192.168.12.234]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4JLot1x6by_Q; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [192.168.25.192]) by pegase1.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DrnjG4kybz9v1rX; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B058B7FA; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:15 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id zkrp1iWXFZBy; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.4.90] (unknown [192.168.4.90]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3628B773; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/uprobes: Validation for prefixed instruction To: Ravi Bangoria References: <20210304050529.59391-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <4d365b9f-6f25-a4bc-c145-c06ee33f1f9f@linux.ibm.com> From: Christophe Leroy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:51:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4d365b9f-6f25-a4bc-c145-c06ee33f1f9f@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jniethe5@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, sandipan@linux.ibm.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Le 04/03/2021 à 11:13, Ravi Bangoria a écrit : > > > On 3/4/21 1:02 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> >> >> Le 04/03/2021 à 06:05, Ravi Bangoria a écrit : >>> As per ISA 3.1, prefixed instruction should not cross 64-byte >>> boundary. So don't allow Uprobe on such prefixed instruction. >>> >>> There are two ways probed instruction is changed in mapped pages. >>> First, when Uprobe is activated, it searches for all the relevant >>> pages and replace instruction in them. In this case, if that probe >>> is on the 64-byte unaligned prefixed instruction, error out >>> directly. Second, when Uprobe is already active and user maps a >>> relevant page via mmap(), instruction is replaced via mmap() code >>> path. But because Uprobe is invalid, entire mmap() operation can >>> not be stopped. In this case just print an error and continue. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria >>> --- >>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210204104703.273429-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com >>> v2->v3: >>>    - Drop restriction for Uprobe on suffix of prefixed instruction. >>>      It needs lot of code change including generic code but what >>>      we get in return is not worth it. >>> >>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c >>> index e8a63713e655..c400971ebe70 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c >>> @@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, >>>       if (addr & 0x03) >>>           return -EINVAL; >>> +    if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) || !cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31)) >> >> cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31) should return 'false' when CONFIG_PPC64 is not enabled, no need >> to double check. > > Ok. > > I'm going to drop CONFIG_PPC64 check because it's not really > required as I replied to Naveen. So, I'll keep CPU_FTR_ARCH_31 > check as is. > >> >>> +        return 0; >>> + >>> +    if (ppc_inst_prefixed(auprobe->insn) && (addr & 0x3F) == 0x3C) { >> >> Maybe 3C instead of 4F ? : (addr & 0x3C) == 0x3C > > Didn't follow. It's not (addr & 0x3C), it's (addr & 0x3F). Sorry I meant 3c instead of 3f (And usually we don't use capital letters for that). The last two bits are supposed to always be 0, so it doesn't really matter, I just thought it would look better having the same value both sides of the test, ie (addr & 0x3c) == 0x3c. > >> >> What about >> >> (addr & (SZ_64 - 4)) == SZ_64 - 4 to make it more explicit ? > > Yes this is bit better. Though, it should be: > >     (addr & (SZ_64 - 1)) == SZ_64 - 4 -1 or -4 should give the same results as instructions are always 32 bits aligned though. Christophe