[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 20:09:33 +0530
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, alyssa.milburn@...el.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
joao@...rdrivepizza.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
keescook@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, mbenes@...e.cz,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
samitolvanen@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/39] x86/ibt,ftrace: Search for __fentry__ location
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 03:15:14PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>> > index 7f0ce42f8ff9..4c13406e0bc4 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>> > @@ -198,13 +198,14 @@ __recover_probed_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *buf, unsigned long addr)
>> >
>> > kp = get_kprobe((void *)addr);
>> > faddr = ftrace_location(addr);
>> > +
>> > /*
>> > - * Addresses inside the ftrace location are refused by
>> > - * arch_check_ftrace_location(). Something went terribly wrong
>> > - * if such an address is checked here.
>> > + * In case addr maps to sym+0 ftrace_location() might return something
>> > + * other than faddr. In that case consider it the same as !faddr.
>> > */
>> > - if (WARN_ON(faddr && faddr != addr))
>> > - return 0UL;
>> > + if (faddr && faddr != addr)
>> > + faddr = 0;
>> > +
>> > /*
>> > * Use the current code if it is not modified by Kprobe
>> > * and it cannot be modified by ftrace.
>>
>> I hit this issue yesterday in kprobe generic code in
>> check_ftrace_location().
>
> What exactly where you running to trigger this? (so that I can extend my
> test coverage etc..)
With the changes here, we always promote probes at +0 offset to the LEP
at +8. So, we get the old behavior of ftrace_location(). But, we also
have functions that do not have a GEP. For those, we allow probing at an
offset of +0, resulting in ftrace_location() giving us the actual ftrace
site, which on ppc64le will be at +4.
On ppc32, this will affect all probes since the ftrace site is usually
at an offset of +8.
I don't think x86 has this issue since you will always have ftrace site
at +0 if a function does not have the endbr instruction. And if you do
have the endbr instruction, then you adjust the probe address so it
won't be at an offset of 0 into the function.
>
>> In both these scenarios, we just want to check if a
>> particular instruction is reserved by ftrace. ftrace_location_range()
>> should still work for that purpose, so that may be the easier fix:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
>> index 066fa644e9dfa3..ee3cd035403ca2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
>> @@ -1596,7 +1596,7 @@ static int check_ftrace_location(struct kprobe *p)
>> {
>> unsigned long ftrace_addr;
>>
>> - ftrace_addr = ftrace_location((unsigned long)p->addr);
>> + ftrace_addr = ftrace_location_range((unsigned long)p->addr, (unsigned long)p->addr);
>
> Yes, although perhaps a new helper. I'll go ponder during lunch.
Sure. We do have ftrace_text_reserved(), but that only returns a
boolean. Masami wanted to ensure that the probe is at an instruction
boundary, hence this check.
>
> PS. I posted v3 but forgot to Cc you:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220303112321.422525803@infradead.org
>
> I think the above hunk ended up in the kprobe patch, but on second
> thought I should've put it in the ftrace one. I'll go ammend and add
> this other site you found.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
- Naveen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists