[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9cb17f4-b698-7d9b-d435-e715ee14c489@c-s.fr>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:58:00 +0100
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
stable@...nel.vger.org,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/kprobes: Fix trap address when trap happened in
real mode
Le 18/02/2020 à 13:33, Masami Hiramatsu a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:04:41 +0100
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:
>
>>>> Nevertheless, if one symbol has been forgotten in the blacklist, I think
>>>> it is a problem if it generate Oopses.
>>>
>>> There is a long history also on x86 to make a blacklist. Anyway, how did
>>> you get this error on PPC32? Somewhere would you like to probe and
>>> it is a real mode function? Or, it happened unexpectedly?
>>
>> The first Oops I got was triggered by a WARN_ON() kind of trap in real
>> mode. The trap exception handler called kprobe_handler() which tried to
>> read the instruction at the trap address (which was a real-mode address)
>> so it triggered a Bad Access Fault.
>>
>> This was initially the purpose of my patch.
>
> OK, then filtering the trap reason in kprobe handler is a bit strange.
> It should be done in the previous stage (maybe in trap.c)
See commit
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.6-rc2&id=6cc89bad60a673a24386f1ada83de8a068a78909
> Can we filter it by exception flag or only by checking the instruction
> which causes the exception, or needs get_kprobe()...?
The trap instruction used by kprobe is also used for other purposes like
BUG_ON() or WARN_ON(), so needs get_kprobe()
>
>> After discussion with you, I started looking at what would be the effect
>> of setting a kprobe event in a function which runs in real mode.
>
> If the kprobe single-stepping (or emulation) works in real mode, just
> ignore the kprobes pre/post_handlers and increment nmissed count.
>
> If that doesn't work, we have to call a BUG_ON, because we can not
> continue the code execution. And also, you have to find a way to make
> a blacklist for real mode code.
Yes, it has to be done function by function (hoppefully there's not more
than a dozen).
But I'd like something which can fails gracefully for the functions we
will forget to mark noprobe.
But as a first step I'd really like a bug fix in 5.6 to avoid Oopsing in
kprobe_handler() at a non-kprobe trap.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists