From: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: <mingo@elte.hu>, <lizefan@huawei.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<pmladek@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes: x86: cleanup __recover_probed_insn().
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:33:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F571C4.5050309@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54F56F02.2070505@hitachi.com>
On 2015/3/3 16:21, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2015/03/03 15:39), Wang Nan wrote:
>> Since kernel kconfig forbids turning off KPROBES_ON_FTRACE for x86, we
>> don't need to consider the situation that a kprobe probing on a ftrace
>> location. The only exception should be early kprobe with
>> KPROBES_ON_FTRACE enabled. However, it is still impossible for it to get
>> a tainted by ftrace if it is registered before ftrace is ready.
>>
>> Thus this patch removes unneed logic to make code simpler.
>
> Nak.
> Please make sure why this is introduced (and try to check by reproducing it).
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/20/208
>
> Thank you,
>
Thank you for your response. I didn't realize it is newly introduced code.
It breaks my early kprobes on ftrace code. I provided a fix on it:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/3/4
Do you have any suggestion on it?
Thank you.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 62 ++++++++----------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>> index 4e3d5a9..88a99c0 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>> @@ -219,55 +219,6 @@ retry:
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static unsigned long
>> -__recover_probed_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *buf, unsigned long addr)
>> -{
>> - struct kprobe *kp;
>> - unsigned long faddr;
>> -
>> - kp = get_kprobe((void *)addr);
>> - faddr = ftrace_location(addr);
>> - /*
>> - * Addresses inside the ftrace location are refused by
>> - * arch_check_ftrace_location(). Something went terribly wrong
>> - * if such an address is checked here.
>> - */
>> - if (WARN_ON(faddr && faddr != addr))
>> - return 0UL;
>> - /*
>> - * Use the current code if it is not modified by Kprobe
>> - * and it cannot be modified by ftrace.
>> - */
>> - if (!kp && !faddr)
>> - return addr;
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * Basically, kp->ainsn.insn has an original instruction.
>> - * However, RIP-relative instruction can not do single-stepping
>> - * at different place, __copy_instruction() tweaks the displacement of
>> - * that instruction. In that case, we can't recover the instruction
>> - * from the kp->ainsn.insn.
>> - *
>> - * On the other hand, in case on normal Kprobe, kp->opcode has a copy
>> - * of the first byte of the probed instruction, which is overwritten
>> - * by int3. And the instruction at kp->addr is not modified by kprobes
>> - * except for the first byte, we can recover the original instruction
>> - * from it and kp->opcode.
>> - *
>> - * In case of Kprobes using ftrace, we do not have a copy of
>> - * the original instruction. In fact, the ftrace location might
>> - * be modified at anytime and even could be in an inconsistent state.
>> - * Fortunately, we know that the original code is the ideal 5-byte
>> - * long NOP.
>> - */
>> - memcpy(buf, (void *)addr, MAX_INSN_SIZE * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
>> - if (faddr)
>> - memcpy(buf, ideal_nops[NOP_ATOMIC5], 5);
>> - else
>> - buf[0] = kp->opcode;
>> - return (unsigned long)buf;
>> -}
>> -
>> /*
>> * Recover the probed instruction at addr for further analysis.
>> * Caller must lock kprobes by kprobe_mutex, or disable preemption
>> @@ -282,7 +233,18 @@ unsigned long recover_probed_instruction(kprobe_opcode_t *buf, unsigned long add
>> if (__addr != addr)
>> return __addr;
>>
>> - return __recover_probed_insn(buf, addr);
>> + /*
>> + * If KPROBES_ON_FTRACE is off, we are not allowed probing at
>> + * ftrace location. If it is on, we should use
>> + * arm_kprobe_ftrace() and never get here. As a result, there
>> + * is no need to care about confliction between kprobe and
>> + * ftrace. The only exception should be early kprobes. However,
>> + * for such kprobes registered before ftrace is ready, it is
>> + * impossible to get a tainted instruction; for such kprobes
>> + * registered after ftrace ready, it will use
>> + * arm_kprobe_ftrace() and won't get here.
>> + */
>> + return addr;
>> }
>>
>> /* Check if paddr is at an instruction boundary */
>>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-03 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-03 6:39 [PATCH] kprobes: x86: cleanup __recover_probed_insn() Wang Nan
2015-03-03 8:21 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-03-03 8:33 ` Wang Nan [this message]
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=54F571C4.5050309@huawei.com \
--to=wangnan0@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
--cc=x86@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