[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081123153140.GF3224@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:31:40 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: 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 <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> [Alexander van Heukelum - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:04:18PM +0100]
> | On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:12:37PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | > [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)
> |
> | Looks like a good approach to me. But I assume the ENTRY cppmacro
> | will include magic?
> |
> | Greetings,
> | Alexander
> |
>
> yes, but now I'm in doubts since we have this definition in common
> linkage.h I dont know if such approach would be usable on other
> platforms.
i'd suggest to introduce another entry macro name for that, for the
time being. If other architectures want to pick up the method, they
can generalize and test it.
( but this is assembly magic so i'm doubtful - while the features used
are generic GAS features that should work everywhere, binutils
variants tend to be rather fragile. So lets go with some other name
like X86_ENTRY()/X86_END() or so - or maybe ENTRY_CFI()/END_CFI(). )
Ingo
--
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