[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <148699820793.8505.2215835182494999847.stgit@devbox>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:03:38 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jon Medhurst <tixy@...aro.org>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"David A . Long" <dave.long@...aro.org>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>
Subject: [BUGFIX PATCH 1/3] kprobes/arm: Allow to handle reentered kprobe on single-stepping
This is arm port of commit 6a5022a56ac3 ("kprobes/x86: Allow to
handle reentered kprobe on single-stepping")
Since the FIQ handlers can interrupt in the single stepping
(or preparing the single stepping, do_debug etc.), we should
consider a kprobe is hit in the NMI handler. Even in that
case, the kprobe is allowed to be reentered as same as the
kprobes hit in kprobe handlers
(KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE or KPROBE_HIT_SSDONE).
The real issue will happen when a kprobe hit while another
reentered kprobe is processing (KPROBE_REENTER), because
we already consumed a saved-area for the previous kprobe.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
---
arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c
index a4ec240..264fedb 100644
--- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c
+++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c
@@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ void __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
switch (kcb->kprobe_status) {
case KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE:
case KPROBE_HIT_SSDONE:
+ case KPROBE_HIT_SS:
/* A pre- or post-handler probe got us here. */
kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
save_previous_kprobe(kcb);
@@ -278,6 +279,11 @@ void __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
singlestep(p, regs, kcb);
restore_previous_kprobe(kcb);
break;
+ case KPROBE_REENTER:
+ /* A nested probe was hit in FIQ, it is a BUG */
+ pr_warn("Unrecoverable kprobe detected at %p.\n",
+ p->addr);
+ /* fall through */
default:
/* impossible cases */
BUG();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists