linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] ftrace/x86: Add register_ftrace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 10:32:13 +0100 (CET)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] ftrace/x86: Add register_ftrace_direct() for custom
 trampolines

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 16:34:58 +0100 (CET)
> Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > > 
> > > Enable x86 to allow for register_ftrace_direct(), where a custom trampoline
> > > may be called directly from an ftrace mcount/fentry location.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>  
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace_64.S
> > > @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__fentry__)
> > >  	movq %rdi, RDI(%rsp)
> > >  	movq %r8, R8(%rsp)
> > >  	movq %r9, R9(%rsp)
> > > +	movq $0, ORIG_RAX(%rsp)
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Save the original RBP. Even though the mcount ABI does not
> > >  	 * require this, it helps out callers.
> > > @@ -114,7 +115,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__fentry__)
> > >  	subq $MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE, %rdi
> > >  	.endm
> > >  
> > > -.macro restore_mcount_regs
> > > +.macro restore_mcount_regs save=0
> > > +
> > >  	movq R9(%rsp), %r9
> > >  	movq R8(%rsp), %r8
> > >  	movq RDI(%rsp), %rdi
> > > @@ -123,10 +125,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__fentry__)
> > >  	movq RCX(%rsp), %rcx
> > >  	movq RAX(%rsp), %rax
> > >  
> > > -	/* ftrace_regs_caller can modify %rbp */
> > > -	movq RBP(%rsp), %rbp
> > > -
> > > -	addq $MCOUNT_REG_SIZE, %rsp
> > > +	addq $MCOUNT_REG_SIZE-\save, %rsp
> > >  
> > >  	.endm
> > >  
> > > @@ -228,10 +227,30 @@ GLOBAL(ftrace_regs_call)
> > >  	movq R10(%rsp), %r10
> > >  	movq RBX(%rsp), %rbx
> > >  
> > > -	restore_mcount_regs
> > > +	movq RBP(%rsp), %rbp
> > > +
> > > +	movq ORIG_RAX(%rsp), %rax
> > > +	movq %rax, MCOUNT_REG_SIZE-8(%rsp)
> > > +
> > > +	/* If ORIG_RAX is anything but zero, make this a call to that */
> > > +	movq ORIG_RAX(%rsp), %rax
> > > +	cmpq	$0, %rax
> > > +	je	1f
> > > +
> > > +	/* Swap the flags with orig_rax */
> > > +	movq MCOUNT_REG_SIZE(%rsp), %rdi
> > > +	movq %rdi, MCOUNT_REG_SIZE-8(%rsp)
> > > +	movq %rax, MCOUNT_REG_SIZE(%rsp)
> > > +
> > > +	restore_mcount_regs 8
> > > +
> > > +	jmp	2f
> > > +
> > > +1:	restore_mcount_regs
> > > +
> > >  
> > >  	/* Restore flags */
> > > -	popfq
> > > +2:	popfq  
> > 
> > If I am reading the code correctly (and I was confused couple of times, so 
> > maybe I am not), this is what makes the direct fops incompatible with 
> > ipmodify and livepatching for now. Is that correct?
> 
> Actually, it's the fact that the return goes to some unknown trampoline
> that may do something else as well.

Right.
 
> > 
> > What are your plans regarding this?
> 
> I wanted to see what the eBPF folks were doing, and then perhaps allow
> the ip modify occur too. I could let it happen as well now, and then we
> can see what the fallout is later ;-)

Waiting for eBPF using this first seems to be a good plan. Your call.
 
> > Moreover, we could replace ftrace_regs_caller with direct fops for live 
> > patching when this is merged with all arch support we need. After all, all 
> 
> Note, direct call is currently only available for x86_64.

Yes, I was speculating over a possibility in the future.

> > we need is to change the rip, which we could do easily in the direct 
> > trampoline. On the other hand, it would exclude coexistence of a live 
> > patch and a BPF filter (both direct now) on one function.
> 
> It may also end up being more complex, and not much of a performance
> benefit. I believe the BPF is injecting programs into the start of
> functions, but your trampoline for live patching may be not much
> different than what ftrace gives you today.

Ok, I made a note in my TODO list and let's see how it will evolve. It is 
definitely not something urgent.

Thanks
Miroslav