Message-Id: <20210723000318.5594c86e7c454aed82d9465d@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 00:03:18 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
Cc:     "liuqi (BA)" <liuqi115@...wei.com>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kprobe: Enable OPTPROBE for arm64

Hi Song,

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:24:54 +0000
"Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu [mailto:mhiramat@...nel.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 8:42 PM
> > To: liuqi (BA) <liuqi115@...wei.com>
> > Cc: catalin.marinas@....com; will@...nel.org; naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com;
> > anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com; davem@...emloft.net;
> > linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> > <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>; Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>;
> > robin.murphy@....com; Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>;
> > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kprobe: Enable OPTPROBE for arm64
> > 
> > Hi Qi,
> > 
> > Thanks for your effort!
> > 
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:24:17 +0800
> > Qi Liu <liuqi115@...wei.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This patch introduce optprobe for ARM64. In optprobe, probed
> > > instruction is replaced by a branch instruction to detour
> > > buffer. Detour buffer contains trampoline code and a call to
> > > optimized_callback(). optimized_callback() calls opt_pre_handler()
> > > to execute kprobe handler.
> > 
> > OK so this will replace only one instruction.
> > 
> > >
> > > Limitations:
> > > - We only support !CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL case to
> > > guarantee the offset between probe point and kprobe pre_handler
> > > is not larger than 128MiB.
> > 
> > Hmm, shouldn't we depends on !CONFIG_ARM64_MODULE_PLTS? Or,
> > allocate an intermediate trampoline area similar to arm optprobe
> > does.
> 
> Depending on !CONFIG_ARM64_MODULE_PLTS will totally disable
> RANDOMIZE_BASE according to arch/arm64/Kconfig:
> config RANDOMIZE_BASE
> 	bool "Randomize the address of the kernel image"
> 	select ARM64_MODULE_PLTS if MODULES
> 	select RELOCATABLE

Yes, but why it is required for "RANDOMIZE_BASE"?
Does that imply the module call might need to use PLT in
some cases?

> 
> Depending on !RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL seems to be still
> allowing RANDOMIZE_BASE via avoiding long jump according to:
> arch/arm64/Kconfig:
> 
> config RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL
> 	bool "Randomize the module region over a 4 GB range"
> 	depends on RANDOMIZE_BASE
> 	default y
> 	help
> 	  Randomizes the location of the module region inside a 4 GB window
> 	  covering the core kernel. This way, it is less likely for modules
> 	  to leak information about the location of core kernel data structures
> 	  but it does imply that function calls between modules and the core
> 	  kernel will need to be resolved via veneers in the module PLT.
> 
> 	  When this option is not set, the module region will be randomized over
> 	  a limited range that contains the [_stext, _etext] interval of the
> 	  core kernel, so branch relocations are always in range.

Hmm, this dependency looks strange. If it always in range, don't we need
PLT for modules?

Cataline, would you know why?
Maybe it's a KASLR's Kconfig issue?

> 
> and
> 
> arch/arm64/kernel/kaslr.c:
> 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL)) {
> 		/*
> 		 * Randomize the module region over a 2 GB window covering the
> 		 * kernel. This reduces the risk of modules leaking information
> 		 * about the address of the kernel itself, but results in
> 		 * branches between modules and the core kernel that are
> 		 * resolved via PLTs. (Branches between modules will be
> 		 * resolved normally.)
> 		 */
> 		module_range = SZ_2G - (u64)(_end - _stext);
> 		module_alloc_base = max((u64)_end + offset - SZ_2G,
> 					(u64)MODULES_VADDR);
> 	} else {
> 		/*
> 		 * Randomize the module region by setting module_alloc_base to
> 		 * a PAGE_SIZE multiple in the range [_etext - MODULES_VSIZE,
> 		 * _stext) . This guarantees that the resulting region still
> 		 * covers [_stext, _etext], and that all relative branches can
> 		 * be resolved without veneers.
> 		 */
> 		module_range = MODULES_VSIZE - (u64)(_etext - _stext);
> 		module_alloc_base = (u64)_etext + offset - MODULES_VSIZE;
> 	}
> 
> So depending on ! ARM64_MODULE_PLTS seems to narrow the scenarios
> while depending on ! RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL  permit more
> machines to use optprobe.

OK, I see that the code ensures the range will be in the MODULE_VSIZE (=128MB).

> 
> I am not quite sure I am 100% right but tests seem to back this.
> hopefully Catalin and Will can correct me.
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > Performance of optprobe on Hip08 platform is test using kprobe
> > > example module[1] to analyze the latency of a kernel function,
> > > and here is the result:
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/sa
> > mples/kprobes/kretprobe_example.c
> > >
> > > kprobe before optimized:
> > > [280709.846380] do_empty returned 0 and took 1530 ns to execute
> > > [280709.852057] do_empty returned 0 and took 550 ns to execute
> > > [280709.857631] do_empty returned 0 and took 440 ns to execute
> > > [280709.863215] do_empty returned 0 and took 380 ns to execute
> > > [280709.868787] do_empty returned 0 and took 360 ns to execute
> > > [280709.874362] do_empty returned 0 and took 340 ns to execute
> > > [280709.879936] do_empty returned 0 and took 320 ns to execute
> > > [280709.885505] do_empty returned 0 and took 300 ns to execute
> > > [280709.891075] do_empty returned 0 and took 280 ns to execute
> > > [280709.896646] do_empty returned 0 and took 290 ns to execute
> > > [280709.902220] do_empty returned 0 and took 290 ns to execute
> > > [280709.907807] do_empty returned 0 and took 290 ns to execute
> > >
> > > optprobe:
> > > [ 2965.964572] do_empty returned 0 and took 90 ns to execute
> > > [ 2965.969952] do_empty returned 0 and took 80 ns to execute
> > > [ 2965.975332] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2965.980714] do_empty returned 0 and took 60 ns to execute
> > > [ 2965.986128] do_empty returned 0 and took 80 ns to execute
> > > [ 2965.991507] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2965.996884] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2966.002262] do_empty returned 0 and took 80 ns to execute
> > > [ 2966.007642] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2966.013020] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2966.018400] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2966.023779] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > > [ 2966.029158] do_empty returned 0 and took 70 ns to execute
> > 
> > Great result!
> > I have other comments on the code below.
> > 
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > > index 6dbcc89f6662..83755ad62abe 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/kasan.h>
> > >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > >  #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> > > +#include <linux/moduleloader.h>
> > >  #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> > >  #include <linux/set_memory.h>
> > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > @@ -113,9 +114,21 @@ int __kprobes arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> > >
> > >  void *alloc_insn_page(void)
> > >  {
> > > -	return __vmalloc_node_range(PAGE_SIZE, 1, VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END,
> > > -			GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_ROX, VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS,
> > > -			NUMA_NO_NODE, __builtin_return_address(0));
> > > +	void *page;
> > > +
> > > +	page = module_alloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> > > +	if (!page)
> > > +		return NULL;
> > > +
> > > +	set_vm_flush_reset_perms(page);
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * First make the page read-only, and only then make it executable to
> > > +	 * prevent it from being W+X in between.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	set_memory_ro((unsigned long)page, 1);
> > > +	set_memory_x((unsigned long)page, 1);
> > > +
> > > +	return page;
> > 
> > Isn't this a separated change? Or any reason why you have to
> > change this function?
> 
> As far as I can tell, this is still related with the 128MB
> short jump limitation.
> VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END is an fixed virtual address area
> which isn't necessarily modules will be put.
> So this patch is moving to module_alloc() which will get
> memory between module_alloc_base and module_alloc_end.

Ah, I missed that point. Yes, VMALLOC_START and VMALLOC_END
are not correct range.

> 
> Together with depending on !RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL,
> this makes all kernel, module and trampoline in short
> jmp area.
> 
> As long as we can figure out a way to support long jmp
> for optprobe, the change in alloc_insn_page() can be
> dropped.

No, I think above change is rather readable, so it is OK.

> 
> Masami, any reference code from any platform to support long
> jump for optprobe? For long jmp, we need to put jmp address
> to a memory and then somehow load the target address
> to PC. Right now, we are able to replace an instruction
> only. That is the problem.

Hmm, I had read a paper about 2-stage jump idea 15years ago. That
paper allocated an intermediate trampoline (like PLT) which did a long
jump to the real trampoline on SPARC.
(something like, "push x0; ldr x0, [pc+8]; br x0; <immediate-addr>" for
a slot of the intermediate trampoline.)

For the other (simpler) solution example is optprobe in powerpc
(arch/powerpc/kernel/optprobes_head.S). That reserves a buffer page
in the text section, and use it.

But I think your current implementation is good enough for the
first step. If someone needs CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL
and optprobe, we can revisit this point.

Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists