linux-kernel - 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]

Message-ID: <CA+b37P1sNsEXrJFfVL51sZ-SeGNCBiwXnOwCiFY8CBwSXPw+mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:25:33 +0530
From:	Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
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: [PATCH RFC 2/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

>>> 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.
>
>>> 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)
Hi Will, Masami,

I am not sure of 'perf' right now (my minimal rootfs doesn't have) but
I tried to test hardware breakpoints using sample modules
"samples/hw_breakpoint/" on arm64 upstream branch. This should use
same kernel api as perf I believe.

1.  Placing watchpoint ( attr.bp_type = HW_BREAKPOINT_W |
HW_BREAKPOINT_R) upon vfs_symlink symbol, but seems watch-point is not
triggering at all.
2.  Placing text breakpoint (modified sample module with attr.bp_type
= HW_BREAKPOINT_X) upon vfs_symlink, and run "ln -s /dev/null
/tmp/foo".  This time, breakpoint hit but exception is re-cursing
infinitely!

I have attached the kernel logs for reference. So wanted to check if
hw breakpoint/watch-points are working on the upstream branch? Has it
been tested recently with sample modules  or perf/ptrace?

Thanks,
Sandeepa

View attachment "kernel_aarch64_20131113-120837.log" of type "text/x-log" (117035 bytes)