Re: [PATCH][v3] uprobes/x86: emulate push insns for uprobe on x86

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 11/14, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> On 11/14/17 7:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >And test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32) is not right too. The caller is not
> >necessarily the probed task. See is_64bit_mm(mm) in arch_uprobe_analyze_insn().
>
> I printed out some statistics. On x86_64 platform, for 32bit application,
> test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32) returns true

See above. The caller can be 64-bit even if the probed task is 32bit. Or
vice versa.

> and is_64bit_mm(mm) returns false.

This is what we need. Again, see its usage in arch_uprobe_analyze_insn()
and note that mm != current->mm.

> So that is why my patch works fine.

test_thread_flag() can't work in general, see above.

> I did not fully understand how to trigger "the caller is not necessarily the
> probed task." So in the next revision, I will use is_64bit_mm(mm) instead.

register_for_each_vma() paths can call arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(), the task
which calls register_ has is not necessarily the task(s) we want to probe.

> >And again... please check if uprobe_init_insn() fails or not in this case
> >(32bit task does, say, "push r8"). If it fails, your V2 should be fine.
>
> The compiler won't generated "push r8" for 32bit task since register "r8" is
> not available on 32bit instruction.

And?

uprobes should be transparent even when it comes to user-space bugs. If
a 32bit app does asm(".byte 0x41, 0x50") for any reason we should either
deny to probe this insn (uprobe_init_insn() should fail), or we should
execute it out-of-line so that it will be trapped correctly.

Oleg.