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:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:32:57 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Florent Revest <revest@...omium.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, 9 Aug 2023 17:45:29 +0200
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org> wrote:

> 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 ?

Isn't it KRETPROBE_ON_RETHOOK?

> 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...

Yeah, it needs to introduce arch_rethook_prepare_pt_regs() for each
arch too.

BTW, I found that I have to update the implementation of
arch_rethook_prepare() for x86. (Use ftrace_get_stack_pointer())

Thank you!

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>