[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56ed3ad1-eb99-97f5-d505-2dce17c4b8b1@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:50:58 +0800
From: "liuqi (BA)" <liuqi115@...wei.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jianhua Liu <jianhua.ljh@...il.com>
CC: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<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>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] arm64: kprobe: Enable OPTPROBE for arm64
On 2022/1/4 10:35, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Jianhua,
>
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:03:33 +0800
> Jianhua Liu <jianhua.ljh@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Qi,
>> I have tested your patch on UNISOC s9863a.
>> Test case "kprobe_example & kretprobe_example" is OK.
>>
>> Two point:
>> 1. backtrace is not perfect.
>> optprobe_common does not saved frame pointer,
>> backtrace lacks two calls.
>> such as for dup_mm: lack copy_process-->dup_mm
>> dup_mm backtrace from your patch:
>> [ 832.387066] CPU: 0 PID: 296 Comm: sh Not tainted 5.16.0-rc5+ #8
>> [ 832.387078] Hardware name: Spreadtrum SP9863A-1H10 Board (DT)
>> [ 832.387083] Call trace:
>> [ 832.387086] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1e0
>> [ 832.387103] show_stack+0x24/0x30
>> [ 832.387112] dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x84
>> [ 832.387123] dump_stack+0x18/0x34
>> [ 832.387131] handler_pre+0x40/0x50 [kprobe_example]
>> [ 832.387143] opt_pre_handler+0x84/0xc0
>> [ 832.387154] optprobe_optimized_callback+0xec/0x164
>> [ 832.387164] optprobe_common+0x70/0xc4
>> [ 832.387173] kernel_clone+0x98/0x440
>> [ 832.387182] __do_sys_clone+0x54/0x80
>> [ 832.387191] __arm64_sys_clone+0x2c/0x40
>> [ 832.387199] invoke_syscall+0x50/0x120
>> [ 832.387208] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x4c/0xf4
>> [ 832.387217] do_el0_svc+0x30/0x9c
>> [ 832.387225] el0_svc+0x20/0x60
>> [ 832.387235] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xe8/0xf0
>> [ 832.387242] el0t_64_sync+0x1a0/0x1a4
>>
>>
>> dup_mm backtrace from other:
>> [ 173.352294] CPU: 6 PID: 309 Comm: sh Not tainted 5.16.0-rc5+ #19
>> [ 173.352301] Hardware name: Spreadtrum SP9863A-1H10 Board (DT)
>> [ 173.352304] Call trace:
>> [ 173.352307] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d4
>> [ 173.352319] show_stack+0x18/0x24
>> [ 173.352326] dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x84
>> [ 173.352333] dump_stack+0x18/0x34
>> [ 173.352338] handler_pre+0x38/0x48 [kprobe_example]
>> [ 173.352347] opt_pre_handler+0x74/0xb0
>> [ 173.352354] optimized_callback+0x108/0x130
>> [ 173.352361] optinsn_slot+0x258/0x1000
>> [ 173.352366] dup_mm+0x4/0x4b0
>> [ 173.352373] copy_process+0x1284/0x1360
>> [ 173.352378] kernel_clone+0x5c/0x3c0
>> [ 173.352384] __do_sys_clone+0x54/0x80
>> [ 173.352390] __arm64_sys_clone+0x24/0x30
>> [ 173.352396] invoke_syscall+0x48/0x114
>> [ 173.352402] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x44/0xec
>> [ 173.352408] do_el0_svc+0x24/0x90
>> [ 173.352413] el0_svc+0x20/0x60
>> [ 173.352420] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xe8/0xf0
>> [ 173.352427] el0t_64_sync+0x1a0/0x1a4
>
> Is the second one with your patch?
>
>>
>> 2. The reserve memory "OPT_SLOT_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE" is waste.
>> kernel/kprobe.c used only one PAGE_SIZE slot memory.
>
Hi Masami,
> Good catch!
> Qi, can you make an array (or bit map) of usage flags and
> manage the reserved memory?
>
Sure, I'll add and test this in bext version, thanks.
Qi
> #define OPT_INSN_PAGES (OPT_SLOT_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE)
> static bool insn_page_in_use[OPT_INSN_PAGES];
>
> void *alloc_optinsn_page(void)
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < OPT_INSN_PAGES; i++)
> if (!insn_page_in_use[i])
> goto found;
> return NULL;
> found:
> insn_page_in_use[i] = true;
> return (void *)((unsigned long)optinsn_slot + PAGE_SIZE * i);
> }
>
> void free_optinsn_page(void *page)
> {
> unsigned long idx = (unsigned long)page - (unsigned long)optinsn_slot;
>
> WARN_ONCE(idx & (PAGE_SIZE - 1));
> idx >>= PAGE_SHIFT;
> if (WARN_ONCE(idx >= OPT_INSN_PAGES))
> return;
> insn_page_in_use[idx] = false;
> }
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists