[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56EC4504.6060702@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:12:20 +0000
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
CC: David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Alex Bennée
<alex.bennee@...aro.org>, Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
John Blackwood <john.blackwood@...r.com>,
Feng Kan <fkan@....com>,
Balamurugan Shanmugam <bshanmugam@....com>,
Vladimir Murzin <Vladimir.Murzin@....com>,
Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/9] arm64: add copy_to/from_user to kprobes blacklist
Hi Pratyush,
On 18/03/16 14:43, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> On 18/03/2016:02:02:49 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> In kernel/entry.S when entered from EL0 we test for TIF_SINGLESTEP in the
>> thread_info flags, and use disable_step_tsk/enable_step_tsk to save/restore the
>> single-step state.
>>
>> Could we do this regardless of which EL we came from?
>
> Thanks for another idea. I think, we can not do this as it is, because
> TIF_SINGLESTEP will not be set for kprobe events.
Hmmm, I see kernel_enable_single_step() doesn't set it, but setup_singlestep()
in patch 5 could...
There is probably a good reason its never set for a kernel thread, I will have a
look at where else it is used.
> But, we can introduce a
> variant disable_step_kernel and enable_step_kernel, which can be called in
> el1_da.
What about sp/pc misalignment, or undefined instructions?
Or worse... an irq occurs during your el1_da call (el1_da may re-enable irqs).
el1_irq doesn't know you were careful not to unmask debug exceptions, it blindly
turns them back on.
The problem is the 'single step me' bit is still set, save/restoring it will
save us having to consider every interaction, (and then missing some!).
It would also mean you don't have to disable interrupts while single stepping in
patch 5 (comment above kprobes_save_local_irqflag()).
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists