[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230429033826.GA91541@k08j02272.eu95sqa>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 11:38:26 +0800
From: "Hou Wenlong" <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Garnier" <thgarnie@...omium.org>,
"Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
"Qing Zhang" <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>,
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 22/43] x86/ftrace: Adapt ftrace nop patching for PIE
support
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 09:44:54PM +0800, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 17:51:02 +0800
> "Hou Wenlong" <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>
> >
> > From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>
> >
> > When using PIE with function tracing, the compiler generates a
> > call through the GOT (call *__fentry__@...PCREL). This instruction
> > takes 6-bytes instead of 5-bytes with a relative call. And -mnop-mcount
> > option is not implemented for -fPIE now.
> >
> > If PIE is enabled, replace the 6th byte of the GOT call by a 1-byte nop
> > so ftrace can handle the previous 5-bytes as before.
>
> Wait! This won't work!
>
> You can't just append another nop to fill in the blanks here. We must
> either have a single 6 byte nop, or we need to refactor the entire logic to
> something that other archs have.
>
> The two nops means that the CPU can take it as two separate commands.
> There's nothing stopping the computer from preempting a task between the
> two. If that happens, and you modify the 1byte nop and 5byte nop with a
> single 6 byte command, when the task get's rescheduled, it will execute the
> last 5 bytes of that 6 byte command and take a general protection fault, and
> likely crash the machine.
>
> NACK on this. It needs a better solution.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
Hi Steve,
Sorry for not providing the original patch link:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190131192533.34130-22-thgarnie@chromium.org/
I drop the Reviewed-by tag due to the change described in commit
message.
This nop patching is only used for the first time (addr = MCOUNT) before
SMP or executing code in module. And ftrace_make_call() is not modified,
then we would use 5 byte direct call to replace the first 5 byte nop
when tracepoint is enabled like before, it's still one instruction. So,
the logic is same like before, patch the first 5 byte when tracepoint is
enabled or disabled during running.
> >
> > [Hou Wenlong: Adapt code change and fix wrong offset calculation in
> > make_nop_x86()]
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists