linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

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:	Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:17:39 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"steve.capper@...aro.org" <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>,
	"srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	"Vijaya.Kumar@...iumnetworks.com" <Vijaya.Kumar@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping
 support

(2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
> <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
>> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>>>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>>>>>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>>>>>> So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
>>>>>> work with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step behaviour on arm64 afaik. On
>>>>> ARM, we have to manually remove the breakpoint, perform a single-step, then
>>>>> add the breakpoint again. If we re-enable debug exceptions in the kprobe
>>>>> handler, the step will complete early and we'll never step off the
>>>>> breakpoint.
>>>>
>>>> I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
>>>> it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
>>>>
>>>>> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model, since
>>>>> I'm fairly sure it won't work as expected without some additional code.
>>>>
>>>> OK, anyway, for testing same one, we need to port ftrace first. So the next
>>
>> Sorry for confusion, s/next/fallback is what I meant. Making a kprobe module
>> can be done without ftrace port.
> Yes, got it, all my verification until now are done using sample
> modules only,  looking out for perf (or some other mechanism: ptrace?)
> that uses v8 hw breakpoint.

Yes, kprobe vs. perf and uprobe vs. ptrace :)


>>>> plan is to make a kprobe module to put a probe (which just printk something)
>>>> on a specific function (e.g. vfs_symlink), and run perf record with
>>>> hw-breakpoint as below
>>>>
>>>> $ perf record -e "mem:0xXXXXXX:k" ln -s /dev/null /tmp/foo
>>>>
>>>> Note that 0xXXXXXX is the address of vfs_symlink.
>>>>
>>>> After that, you can see the message in dmesg and also check the perf result
>>>> with "sudo perf script --dump" (you can find a PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE entry if
>>>> it works)
>>> Thanks for steps, ARM64 ftrace patches are under review on arm mailing
>>> list, I can contact the (linaro) developer implementing ftrace on
>>> what's supported and then figure-out a way to test this concurrency of
>>> kprobes breakpoint and hardware breakpoint.
>>
>> Would you mean this? :)
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg278477.html
>>
>> Wow, it seems that this also has some works around instruction
>> manipulation (and confusable filenames...)
> I referred to: http://lwn.net/Articles/572323/  which is another
> implementation and on LAKML

OK, I'll check that (and looks good at a glance).
By the way, I concern about Linaro guys who looks working a bit far
from the LKML and original feature maintainers. Please contact them,
I'm sure they don't bite your hand :)

BTW, I'm currently trying a general housecleaning of __kprobes
annotations. It may also have impact on your patch.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/8/187

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/