linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] fprobe: rethook: Use fprobe

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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:45:29 +0200
From:   Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] fprobe: rethook: Use fprobe_regs in fprobe
 exit handler and rethook

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 4:43 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > I think there are two things that can be meant with "rethook uses ftrace_regs":
> >
> > - rethook callbacks receive a ftrace_regs (that's what you do further down)
> > - rethook can hook to a traced function using a ftrace_regs (that's
> > what you use in fprobe now)
> >
> > But I think the second proposition shouldn't imply that rethook_hook
> > can _only_ hook to ftrace_regs. For the kprobe use case, I think there
> > should also be a rethook_hook_pt_regs() that operates on a pt_regs. We
> > could have a default implementation of rethook_hook that calls into
> > the other (or vice versa) on HAVE_FTRACE_REGS_COMPATIBLE_WITH_PT_REGS
> > but I think it's good to separate these two APIs
>
> Yeah, so for simplying the 2nd case, I added this dependency.
>
> diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
> index aff2746c8af2..e321bdb8b22b 100644
> --- a/arch/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/Kconfig
> @@ -201,6 +201,7 @@ config KRETPROBE_ON_RETHOOK
>         def_bool y
>         depends on HAVE_RETHOOK
>         depends on KRETPROBES
> +       depends on HAVE_PT_REGS_COMPAT_FTRACE_REGS || !HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
>         select RETHOOK
>
> This is the point why I said that "do not remove kretprobe trampoline".
> If there is arch dependent kretprobe trampoline, kretprobe does not use
> the rethook for hooking return. And eventually I would like to remove
> kretprobe itself (replace it with fprobe + rethook). If so, I don't want
> to pay more efforts on this part, and keep kretprobe on rethook as it is.

What are your thoughts on kprobe + rethook though ?

If that's something you think is worth having, then in this case, it
seems that having a rethook_hook_pt_regs() API would help users.

If that's a frankenstein use case you don't want to support then I
agree we can live without this API and get away with the cast
protected by the depends on HAVE_PT_REGS_COMPAT_FTRACE_REGS...