[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d365b9f-6f25-a4bc-c145-c06ee33f1f9f@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:43:47 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: jniethe5@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
sandipan@...ux.ibm.com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/uprobes: Validation for prefixed instruction
On 3/4/21 1:02 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 04/03/2021 à 06:05, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> As per ISA 3.1, prefixed instruction should not cross 64-byte
>> boundary. So don't allow Uprobe on such prefixed instruction.
>>
>> 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 that probe
>> is on the 64-byte unaligned 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210204104703.273429-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com
>> v2->v3:
>> - Drop restriction for Uprobe on suffix of prefixed instruction.
>> It needs lot of code change including generic code but what
>> we get in return is not worth it.
>>
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c
>> index e8a63713e655..c400971ebe70 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c
>> @@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe,
>> if (addr & 0x03)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) || !cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31))
>
> cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31) should return 'false' when CONFIG_PPC64 is not enabled, no need to double check.
Ok.
I'm going to drop CONFIG_PPC64 check because it's not really
required as I replied to Naveen. So, I'll keep CPU_FTR_ARCH_31
check as is.
>
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (ppc_inst_prefixed(auprobe->insn) && (addr & 0x3F) == 0x3C) {
>
> Maybe 3C instead of 4F ? : (addr & 0x3C) == 0x3C
Didn't follow. It's not (addr & 0x3C), it's (addr & 0x3F).
>
> What about
>
> (addr & (SZ_64 - 4)) == SZ_64 - 4 to make it more explicit ?
Yes this is bit better. Though, it should be:
(addr & (SZ_64 - 1)) == SZ_64 - 4
Ravi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists