[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <79b0bed7-8b98-d58d-dc47-644195bbc095@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:19:40 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To: mpe@...erman.id.au
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, paulus@...ba.org,
jniethe5@...il.com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com,
sandipan@...ux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/uprobes: Validation for prefixed instruction
On 2/4/21 4:17 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Don't allow Uprobe on 2nd word of a prefixed instruction. As per
> ISA 3.1, prefixed instruction should not cross 64-byte boundary.
> So don't allow Uprobe on such prefixed instruction as well.
>
> There are two ways probed instruction is changed in mapped pages.
> First, when Uprobe is activated, it searches for all the relevant
> pages and replace instruction in them. In this case, if we notice
> that probe is on the 2nd word of prefixed instruction, error out
> directly. Second, when Uprobe is already active and user maps a
> relevant page via mmap(), instruction is replaced via mmap() code
> path. But because Uprobe is invalid, entire mmap() operation can
> not be stopped. In this case just print an error and continue.
@mpe,
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can return early if
cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31) is not set. But that will
miss out a rare scenario of user running binary with prefixed
instruction on p10 predecessors. Please let me know if I
should add cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31) or not.
- Ravi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists