linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH

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:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:58:00 +0200
From:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:	Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, takahiro.akashi@...aro.org,
	Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, andrew.wafaa@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning
> of each function, like the concept proven in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html
> (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data structure
> for kernel use), the generated pads can nicely be used to reroute
> function calls for tracing/profiling, or live patching.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c
> index ebecf9a..917065c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,12 @@ static int ftrace_modify_code(unsigned long pc, u32 old, u32 new,
>  		if (aarch64_insn_read((void *)pc, &replaced))
>  			return -EFAULT;
>  
> +		/* If we already have what we'll finally want,
> +		 * report success. This is needed on startup.
> +		 */
> +		if (replaced == new)
> +			return 0;

This looks strange. I wonder if it actually hides a real bug that we
modify the code twice or so.

I wanted to try it myself but I haven't succeeded with creating an ARM test
system yet.

Best Regards,
Petr