linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/kprobes: Fix frame pointer annotations

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]

Message-ID: <20190509140001.fvwzlnhai6ddqjmt@treble>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 09:00:01 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        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>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/kprobes: Fix frame pointer annotations

On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 10:14:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But what I'd love to do is something like the belwo patch, and make all
> the trampolines (very much including ftrace) use that. Such that we then
> only have 1 copy of this magic (well, 2 because x86_64 also needs an
> implementation of this of course).
> 
> Changing ftrace over to this would be a little more work but it can
> easily chain things a little to get its original context back:
> 
> ENTRY(ftrace_regs_caller)
> GLOBAL(ftrace_regs_func)
> 	push ftrace_stub
> 	push ftrace_regs_handler
> 	jmp call_to_exception_trampoline
> END(ftrace_regs_caller)
> 
> typedef void (*ftrace_func_t)(unsigned long, unsigned long, struct ftrace_op *, struct pt_regs *);
> 
> struct ftrace_regs_stack {
> 	ftrace_func_t func;
> 	unsigned long parent_ip;
> };
> 
> void ftrace_regs_handler(struct pr_regs *regs)
> {
> 	struct ftrace_regs_stack *st = (void *)regs->sp;
> 	ftrace_func_t func = st->func;
> 
> 	regs->sp += sizeof(long); /* pop func */
> 
> 	func(regs->ip, st->parent_ip, function_trace_op, regs);
> }
> 
> Hmm? I didn't look into the function_graph thing, but I imagine it can
> be added without too much pain.

I like this patch a lot, assuming it can be made to work for the
different users.

-- 
Josh