[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190506232158.13c9123b@oasis.local.home>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 23:21:58 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call
functions
On Mon, 6 May 2019 20:05:24 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> It would emulate the call that has had its first byte overwritten by
> 'int3'. Without doing any lookups of what it was supposed to change
> the call to, because it simply depends on what the rewriting code is
> doing on another CPU (or on the same CPU - it wouldn't care).
OK, so this is just about what to have it call.
>
> So no need to look up anything, not at int3 time, and not at return
> time. It would just emulate the instruction atomically, with no state,
> and no need to look up what the 'ip' instruction is at the time.
>
> It could literally just use a single flag: "is ftrace updating call
> instructions". Add another flag for the "I'm nop'ing out call
> instructions" so that it knows to emulate a jump-over instead. That's
> it.
Well we have that, and we have to look up the record regardless to know
if this was a ftrace int3 or not (the ftrace_location(ip) does that).
And the record has a counter to # of attached callers. Zero being to
turn it into a nop.
Note, if we are going from nop to call or call to nop, it would need to
read the offset to see if it is a nop (don't want to call with the nop
offset)
>
> Because all the actual *values* would be entirely be determined by the
> actual rewriting that is going on independently of the 'int3'
> exception.
But still, we need to emulate the call, which requires pushing the
return code back onto the stack. I believe that part is the part we are
struggling with.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists