[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081123141237.GI24818@localhost>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:12:37 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE_END
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:51:34PM +0300]
| [Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:27:52PM +0100]
| |
| | * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com> wrote:
| |
| | > Impact: moves some code out of .kprobes.text
| | >
| | > KPROBE_ENTRY switches code generation to .kprobes.text, and KPROBE_END
| | > uses .popsection to get back to the previous section (.text, normally).
| | > Also replace ENDPROC by END, for consistency.
| | >
| | > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
| |
| | applied to tip/x86/irq, thanks Alexander!
| |
| | > One more small change for today. The xen-related functions
| | > xen_do_hypervisor_callback and xen_failsafe_callback are put
| | > in the .kprobes.text even in the current kernel: ignore_sysret
| | > is enclosed in KPROBE_ENTRY / ENDPROC, instead of KPROBE_ENTRY /
| | > KPROBE_END, but I guess the situation is harmless.
| |
| | yeah. It narrows no-kprobes protection for that code, but it should
| | indeed be fine (and that's the intention as well).
| |
| | Note that this is a reoccuring bug type, and rather long-lived. Can
| | you think of any way to get automated nesting protection of both the
| | .cfi_startproc/endproc macros and kprobes start/end? A poor man's
| | solution would be to grep the number of start and end methods and
| | enforce that they are equal.
| |
| | Ingo
| |
|
| I think we could play with preprocessor and check if ENTRY/END matches.
| Looking now.
|
| - Cyrill -
Here is what I've done
1) Add some macros like:
.macro __set_entry
.set _ENTRY_IN, 1
.endm
.macro __unset_entry
.set _ENTRY_IN, 0
.endm
.macro __check_entry
.ifeq _ENTRY_IN
.error "END should be used"
.abort
.endif
.endm
So the code
ENTRY(mcount)
__unset_entry
retq
__check_entry
END(mcount)
will fail like
cyrill@...ovo linux-2.6.git $ make arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.o
CHK include/linux/version.h
CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h
SYMLINK include/asm -> include/asm-x86
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
AS arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.o
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S: Assembler messages:
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:84: Error: END should be used
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:84: Fatal error: .abort detected. Abandoning ship.
make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.o] Error 2
cyrill@...ovo linux-2.6.git $
So if such an approach is acceptable (in general) -- I could take a more
deeper look. So every ENTRY would check if other ENTRY/KPROBE is active
and report that.
- Cyrill -
--
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