linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 10/20] 10: uprobes: task specific information.

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]

Message-ID: <4D3F1897.60300@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:38:15 -0800
From:	Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 10/20] 10: uprobes: task specific
 information.

On 01/25/2011 05:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Ah, I think I found it while reading patch 13, you need the pre/post_xol
> callbacks, can't you simply synthesize their effect into the replacement
> sequence?
> 
>   push %rax
>   mov $vaddr, %rax
>   $INSN
>   pop %rax
>   jmp $next_insn
> 
> like replacements would obviate the need for the pre/post callbacks and
> allow you to run straight through.

For this particular example, you'd better be sure that $INSN doesn't
need %rsp intact.

Control flow in general also makes this challenging.  If $INSN is a
call, then any inline fixups won't get a chance until after return.  If
$INSN is a jump, then its target must be modified so that both taken and
not-taken paths land in respective fixup locations.  I'm sure there are
more cases that I'm not thinking of.

> It would also remove the whole single-step need since they're proper
> boosted probes.

Kprobes has boosting, but it doesn't apply to all opcodes.  I would
guess that the same could be done for uprobes, where certain opcodes get
a fixup sequence like you suggest, but the pre/post_xol mechanism is
still needed in general.

Josh
--
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/