Re: [PATCH bpf-next 08/13] uprobes/x86: Add support to optimize uprobes

Jiri Olsa
2024-12-16T12:50:33Z

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:22:05PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> OK, thanks, I am starting to share your concerns...
>
> Oleg.
>
> On 12/16, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > From: Oleg Nesterov
> > > Sent: 16 December 2024 10:13
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > let me say first that my understanding of this magic is very limited,
> > > please correct me.
> >
> > I only (half) understand what the 'magic' has to accomplish and
> > some of the pitfalls.
> >
> > I've copied linux-mm - someone there might know more.
> >
> > > On 12/16, David Laight wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It all depends on how hard __replace_page() tries to be atomic.
> > > > The page has to change from one backed by the executable to a private
> > > > one backed by swap - otherwise you can't write to it.
> > >
> > > This is what uprobe_write_opcode() does,
> >
> > And will be enough for single byte changes - they'll be picked up
> > at some point after the change.
> >
> > > > But the problems arise when the instruction prefetch unit has read
> > > > part of the 5-byte instruction (it might even only read half a cache
> > > > line at a time).
> > > > I'm not sure how long the pipeline can sit in that state - but I
> > > > can do a memory read of a PCIe address that takes ~3000 clocks.
> > > > (And a misaligned AVX-512 read is probably eight 8-byte transfers.)
> > > >
> > > > So I think you need to force an interrupt while the PTE is invalid.
> > > > And that need to be simultaneous on all cpu running that process.
> > >
> > > __replace_page() does ptep_get_and_clear(old_pte) + flush_tlb_page().
> > >
> > > That's not enough?
> >
> > I doubt it. As I understand it.
> > The hardware page tables will be shared by all the threads of a process.
> > So unless you hard synchronise all the cpu (and flush the TLB) while the
> > PTE is being changed there is always the possibility of a cpu picking up
> > the new PTE before the IPI that (I presume) flush_tlb_page() generates
> > is processed.
> > If that happens when the instruction you are patching is part-read into
> > the instruction decode buffer then you'll execute a mismatch of the two
> > instructions.

if 5 byte update would be a problem, I guess we could workaround that through
partial updates using int3 like we do in text_poke_bp_batch?

- changing nop5 instruction to 'call xxx'
- write int3 to first byte of nop5 instruction
- have poke_int3_handler to emulate nop5 if int3 is triggered
- write rest of the call instruction to nop5 last 4 bytes
- overwrite first byte of nop5 with call opcode

similar update from 'call xxx' -> 'nop5'

thanks,
jirka

> >
> > I can't remember the outcome of discussions about live-patching kernel
> > code - and I'm sure that was aligned 32bit writes.
> >
> > >
> > > > Stopping the process using ptrace would do it.
> > >
> > > Not an option :/
> >
> > Thought you'd say that.
> >
> > David
> >
> > >
> > > Oleg.
> >
> > -
> > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> >
>