linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: implement KPROBES_ON

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:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:47:13 +0000
From:   Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: implement KPROBES_ON_FTRACE

Hi,

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:23:58 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:


> 
> 
> Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > KPROBES_ON_FTRACE avoids much of the overhead with regular kprobes as it
> > eliminates the need for a trap, as well as the need to emulate or
> > single-step instructions.
> >
> > Tested on berlin arm64 platform.
> >
> > ~ # mount -t debugfs debugfs /sys/kernel/debug/
> > ~ # cd /sys/kernel/debug/
> > /sys/kernel/debug # echo 'p _do_fork' > tracing/kprobe_events
> >
> > before the patch:
> >
> > /sys/kernel/debug # cat kprobes/list
> > ffffff801009fe28  k  _do_fork+0x0    [DISABLED]
> >
> > after the patch:
> >
> > /sys/kernel/debug # cat kprobes/list
> > ffffff801009ff54  k  _do_fork+0x4    [DISABLED][FTRACE]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>  
> 
> This looks good to me. Except for a small confirmation below:
> Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 

<...>

> > +/* Ftrace callback handler for kprobes -- called under preepmt disabed */
> > +void kprobe_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> > +                        struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +     struct kprobe *p;
> > +     struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb;
> > +
> > +     /* Preempt is disabled by ftrace */
> > +     p = get_kprobe((kprobe_opcode_t *)ip);
> > +     if (unlikely(!p) || kprobe_disabled(p))
> > +             return;
> > +
> > +     kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
> > +     if (kprobe_running()) {
> > +             kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
> > +     } else {
> > +             unsigned long orig_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
> > +             /* Kprobe handler expects regs->pc = pc + 4 as breakpoint hit */
> > +             instruction_pointer_set(regs, ip + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));  
> 
> Just want to make sure that you've confirmed that this is what happens
> with a regular trap/brk based kprobe on ARM64. The reason for setting
> the instruction pointer here is to ensure that it is set to the same
> value as would be set if there was a trap/brk instruction at the ftrace
> location. This ensures that the kprobe pre handler sees the same value
> regardless.

Due to the arm64's DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS implementation, the code itself
is correct. But this doesn't look like "there was a trap instruction at
the ftrace location".

W/O KPROBE_ON_FTRACE:

foo:
00	insA
04	insB
08	insC

kprobe's pre_handler() will see pc points to 00.

W/ KPROBE_ON_FTRACE:

foo:
00	lr saver
04	nop     // will be modified to ftrace call ins when KPROBE is armed
08	insA
0c	insB

later, kprobe_ftrace_handler() will see pc points to 04, so pc + 4 will
point to 08 the same as the one w/o KPROBE_ON_FTRACE.

It seems I need to fix the comment.

> 
> Further changes to the instruction pointer are to achieve the same
> effect for kprobe post handlers.
> 
>