linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: kprobe: Optimize kprobe with accurate atomicity

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJF2gTQZWO8Ubi60nHn-J-8czqBnsp1Kdyoim3uLNkjbYd-H8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 09:01:31 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc:     "liaochang (A)" <liaochang1@...wei.com>, palmer@...belt.com,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        conor.dooley@...rochip.com, penberg@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: kprobe: Optimize kprobe with accurate atomicity

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:28 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org> writes:
>
> >> In the serie of RISCV OPTPROBES [1], it patches a long-jump instructions pair
> >> AUIPC/JALR in kernel text, so in order to ensure other CPUs does not execute
> >> in the instructions that will be modified, it is still need to stop other CPUs
> >> via patch_text API, or you have any better solution to achieve the purpose?
> >  - The stop_machine is an expensive way all architectures should
> > avoid, and you could keep that in your OPTPROBES implementation files
> > with static functions.
> >  - The stop_machine couldn't work with PREEMPTION, so your
> > implementation needs to work with !PREEMPTION.
>
> ...and stop_machine() with !PREEMPTION is broken as well, when you're
> replacing multiple instructions (see Mark's post at [1]). The
> stop_machine() dance might work when you're replacing *one* instruction,
> not multiple as in the RISC-V case. I'll expand on this in a comment in
> the OPTPROBES v6 series.
>
> >> >  static void __kprobes arch_prepare_simulate(struct kprobe *p)
> >> > @@ -114,16 +120,23 @@ void *alloc_insn_page(void)
> >> >  /* install breakpoint in text */
> >> >  void __kprobes arch_arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> >> >  {
> >> > -     if ((p->opcode & __INSN_LENGTH_MASK) == __INSN_LENGTH_32)
> >> > -             patch_text(p->addr, __BUG_INSN_32);
> >> > -     else
> >> > -             patch_text(p->addr, __BUG_INSN_16);
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C
> >> > +     u32 opcode = __BUG_INSN_16;
> >> > +#else
> >> > +     u32 opcode = __BUG_INSN_32;
> >> > +#endif
> >> > +     patch_text_nosync(p->addr, &opcode, GET_INSN_LENGTH(opcode));
> >>
> >> Sounds good, but it will leave some RVI instruction truncated in kernel text,
> >> i doubt kernel behavior depends on the rest of the truncated instruction, well,
> >> it needs more strict testing to prove my concern :)
> > I do this on purpose, and it doesn't cause any problems. Don't worry;
> > IFU hw must enforce the fetch sequence, and there is no way to execute
> > broken instructions even in the speculative execution path.
>
> This is stretching reality a bit much. ARMv8, e.g., has a chapter in the
> Arm ARM [2] Appendix B "Concurrent modification and execution of
> instructions" (CMODX). *Some* instructions can be replaced concurrently,
> and others cannot without caution. Assuming that that all RISC-V
> implementations can, is a stretch. RISC-V hasn't even specified the
> behavior of CMODX (which is problematic).
Here we only use one sw/sh instruction to store a 32bit/16bit aligned element:

INSN_0 <- ebreak (16bit/32bit aligned)
INSN_1
INSN_2

The ebreak would cause an exception which implies a huge fence here.
No machine could give a speculative execution for the ebreak path.

>
> If anything it would be more likely that the existing
> "stop_machine()-to-replace-with-ebreak" works (again, replacing one
> instruction does not have the !PREEMPTION issues). Then again, no spec,
> so mostly guessing from my side. :-(
>
> Oh, but the existing "ebreak replace" might be broken like [3].
>
>
> Björn
>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/Y7%2F6AtX5X0+5qF6Y@FVFF77S0Q05N/
> [2] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/latest
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230126170607.1489141-2-guoren@kernel.org/



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren