[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170301011651.d9961aee415783f3c7b78b19@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:16:51 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[]
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:26:46 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> One more complication with __ex_table and optimized kprobes is that we
> need to be careful not to clobber __ex_table[].fixup. It would be very
> bad if the optimized probe were to clobber the address we let the fixup
> return to -- or that needs fixups too, _after_ running
> __ex_table[].handler().
This gave me a chance to read closer current code, and I found that
I made a mistake 5 years ago on kprobe-booster. The commit 464846888d9a
("x86/kprobes: Fix a bug which can modify kernel code permanently")
introduced another bug -- which passed the address of copied instruction
instead of probing address to search_exception_tables() when preparing
kprobe-booster (skips singlestep.)
I'll send a fix patch.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists