[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52AAA3CE.9010301@hitachi.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:06:06 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>, x86@...nel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
systemtap@...rceware.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()
and fixes crash bugs
(2013/12/13 14:34), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Lets assume we allow a probe to be inserted in the single-step path.
>> Such a probe will be an INT3 instruction and if it hits we get a
>> recursive INT3 invocation. In that case the INT3 handler should simply
>> restore the original instruction and _leave it so_. There's no
>> single-stepping needed - the probe is confused and must be discarded.
>
> But how can we restore the protected kernel text?
> If we use text_poke, we also need to prohibit probing on the text_poke
> and functions called in the text_poke too. That just shifts the annotated
> area to the text_poke. :(
BTW, currently we mark the text_poke as nokprobe_symbol, but it should be
removed. We don't call it from kprobes int3/debug handlers.
The patches which removes __kprobes in this series are only for kprobe
related files (arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/* or kernel/kprobes.c.) I think
we should do it for other parts.
Is it better to do that on this series?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists