Date:	Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:19:43 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [CFT] Code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code


* Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@...il.com> wrote:

> Since people are discussing some x86 Kprobes code cleanup, I thought I 
> would contribute a small change as well.  When developing the Kprobes 
> arch code for ARM, I ran across some code found in x86 and s390 
> Kprobes arch code which I didn't consider as good as it could be.
> 
> Once I figured out what the code was doing, I changed the code for ARM 
> Kprobes to work the way I felt was more appropriate. I've tested the 
> code this way in ARM for about a year and would like to push the same 
> change to the other affected architectures.

thanks Quentin, it looks good to me and i've applied the x86 bit to 
x86.git. (find the merged patch attached below)

small note:

> @@ -654,12 +655,12 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct
> notifier_block *self,
>  			ret = NOTIFY_STOP;

your email client apparently line-wrapped this portion of the patch - i 
fixed it up manually (wasnt a big issue). Please see 
Documentation/email-clients.txt about how to set up your email client.

	Ingo

-------------------->
Subject: Code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code
From: "Quentin Barnes" <qbarnes@...il.com>

When developing the Kprobes arch code for ARM, I ran across some code
found in x86 and s390 Kprobes arch code which I didn't consider as
good as it could be.

Once I figured out what the code was doing, I changed the code
for ARM Kprobes to work the way I felt was more appropriate.
I've tested the code this way in ARM for about a year and would
like to push the same change to the other affected architectures.

The code in question is in kprobe_exceptions_notify() which
does:
====
          /* kprobe_running() needs smp_processor_id() */
          preempt_disable();
          if (kprobe_running() &&
              kprobe_fault_handler(args->regs, args->trapnr))
                  ret = NOTIFY_STOP;
          preempt_enable();
====

For the moment, ignore the code having the preempt_disable()/
preempt_enable() pair in it.

The problem is that kprobe_running() needs to call smp_processor_id()
which will assert if preemption is enabled.  That sanity check by
smp_processor_id() makes perfect sense since calling it with preemption
enabled would return an unreliable result.

But the function kprobe_exceptions_notify() can be called from a
context where preemption could be enabled.  If that happens, the
assertion in smp_processor_id() happens and we're dead.  So what
the original author did (speculation on my part!) is put in the
preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() pair to simply defeat the check.

Once I figured out what was going on, I considered this an
inappropriate approach.  If kprobe_exceptions_notify() is called
from a preemptible context, we can't be in a kprobe processing
context at that time anyways since kprobes requires preemption to
already be disabled, so just check for preemption enabled, and if
so, blow out before ever calling kprobe_running().  I wrote the ARM
kprobe code like this:
====
          /* To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to
           * trust the result from kprobe_running(), we have
           * be non-preemptible. */
          if (!preemptible() && kprobe_running() &&
              kprobe_fault_handler(args->regs, args->trapnr))
                  ret = NOTIFY_STOP;
====

The above code has been working fine for ARM Kprobes for a year.
So I changed the x86 code (2.6.24-rc6) to be the same way and ran
the Systemtap tests on that kernel.  As on ARM, Systemtap on x86
comes up with the same test results either way, so it's a neutral
external functional change (as expected).

This issue has been discussed previously on linux-arm-kernel and the
Systemtap mailing lists.  Pointers to the by base for the two
discussions:
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20071219.223225.1f5c2a5e.en.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2007-q1/msg00251.html

Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |   11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Index: linux-x86.q/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
===================================================================
--- linux-x86.q.orig/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ linux-x86.q/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
 #include <linux/ptrace.h>
 #include <linux/string.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/hardirq.h>
 #include <linux/preempt.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/kdebug.h>
@@ -951,12 +952,14 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_exceptions_notify(s
 			ret = NOTIFY_STOP;
 		break;
 	case DIE_GPF:
-		/* kprobe_running() needs smp_processor_id() */
-		preempt_disable();
-		if (kprobe_running() &&
+		/*
+		 * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to
+		 * trust the result from kprobe_running(), we have
+		 * be non-preemptible.
+		 */
+		if (!preemptible() && kprobe_running() &&
 		    kprobe_fault_handler(args->regs, args->trapnr))
 			ret = NOTIFY_STOP;
-		preempt_enable();
 		break;
 	default:
 		break;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists