[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52AEDBB4.5060502@hitachi.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:53:40 +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
Hi Ingo,
(2013/12/13 14:34), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>>> And also, even if we can detect the recursion, we can't stop the
>>>>> kernel, we need to skip the probe. This means that we need to
>>>>> recover to the main execution path by doing single step. As you
>>>>> may know, since the single stepping involves the debug exception,
>>>>> we have to avoid proving on that path too. Or we'll have an
>>>>> infinite recursion again.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why this is needed: if a "probing is disabled"
>>>> recursion flag is set the moment the first probe fires, and if
>>>> it's only cleared once all processing is finished, then any
>>>> intermediate probes should simply return early from int3 and not
>>>> fire.
>>>
>>> No, because the int3 already changes the original instruction.
>>> This means that you cannot skip singlestep(or emulate) the
>>> instruction which is copied to execution buffer (ainsn->insn),
>>> even if you have such the flag.
>>> So, kprobe requires the annotations on the singlestep path.
>>
>> I don't understand this reasoning.
>>
>> 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. :(
OK, I've checked current text_poke() and thought how we can do that.
The current text_poke() uses special fixmap to make alias pages for
avoiding kernel-text readonly protection. For protecting the fixmap
pages, we are currently using text_mutex and this is why we can't use
it in exception path. There are other minor issues, but it seems to
be fixed easily. :)
Thus, for recovering original instruction in the int3 handler,
I'd like to propose adding another text_poke like function, which
requires another fixmap page and protects it by using raw_spinlock
(to avoid tracing), and just support one-byte poke (this means it
never across the page boundary).
Perhaps, it can be implemented inside kprobes, because it is not
useful for other subsystems.
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