[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210129140103.3ce971b7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:01:03 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: kprobes broken since 0d00449c7a28 ("x86: Replace ist_enter()
with nmi_enter()")
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:59:43 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:45:48AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Same things apply to bpf side. We can statically prove safety for
> > ftrace and kprobe attaching whereas to deal with NMI situation we
> > have to use run-time checks for recursion prevention, etc.
>
> I have no idea what you're saying. You can attach to functions that are
> called with random locks held, you can create kprobes in some very
> sensitive places.
>
> What can you staticlly prove about that?
I think the main difference is, if you attach a kprobe or ftrace function,
you can theoretically analyze the location before you do the attachment.
Does, the NMI context mean "in_nmi()" returns true? Because there's cases
in ftrace callbacks where that is checked (like the stack tracer). And
having ftrace return true for "in_nmi()" will break a lot of existing
utilities.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists