linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 24/32] x86/ftrace: Enable HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH

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

Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 10:05:49 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 24/32] x86/ftrace: Enable HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FREGS

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:33:01 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 00:17:34 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Changelog nor code made it clear this was partial anything. So this is
> > still the partial thing?
> > 
> > Can we then pretty clear clarify all that, and make it clear which regs
> > are in there? Because when I do 'vim -t ftrace_regs' it just gets me a
> > seemingly pointless wrapper struct, no elucidating comments nothingses.
> 
> I agree it should be better documented (like everything else). The
> ftrace_regs must have all the registers needed to produce a function's
> arguments. For x86_64, that would be:
> 
>   rdi, rsi, rdx, r8, r9, rsp
> 
> Basically anything that is needed to call mcount/fentry.

Oops, I found I missed to save rsp. let me update it.

Anyway, this will be defined clearly. ftrace_regs needs to be a partial
set of registers related to the (kernel) function call.

 - registers which is used for passing the function parameters in
   integer registers and stack pointer (for parameters on memory).

 - registers which is used for passing the return values.

 - call-frame-pointer register if exists.

So for x86-64,

 - rdi, rsi, rcx, rdx, r8, r9, and rsp
 - rax and rdx
 - rbp

(BTW, why orig_rax is cleared?)

> But yes, it's still partial registers but for archs that support
> FTRACE_WITH_REGS, it can also hold all pt_regs which can be retrieved
> by the arch_ftrace_get_regs(), which is why there's a pt_regs struct in
> the x86 version. But that's not the case for arm64, as
> arch_ftrace_get_regs() will always return NULL.

The major reason of the DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS is livepatch and
kprobe on ftrace (if kprobe puts probe on the ftrace address, it uses
ftrace instead of breakpoint).

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>