linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv: Implement HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_CALL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:50:11 +0100
From: Robbin Ehn <rehn@...osinc.com>
To: Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>
Cc: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>, 
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, 
	Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Ley Foon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>, 
	Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>, Sia Jee Heng <jeeheng.sia@...rfivetech.com>, 
	Bjorn Topel <bjorn@...osinc.com>, Song Shuai <suagrfillet@...il.com>, 
	"Cl'ement L'eger" <cleger@...osinc.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Brendan Sweeney <brs@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv: Implement HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_CALL_OPS

Hey,

> <index-in-dispatch-list>
> func_symbol:
> auipc t0, common_dispatch:high <=> j actual_func:
> jalr t0, common_dispatch:low(t0)
>

If you are patching in a jump, I don't see why you wouldn't jump over
ld+jalr? (no need for common dispatch)
Patching jalr with nop, and keeping auipc, addresses the issue with
having to jump in the disabled case.
But needs either common dispatch or per func dispatch.

Thanks, Robbin

> common_dispatch:
> load t1, index + dispatch-list
> ld t1, 0(t1)
> jr t1
>
>
> >
> > > However, one thing I am not very sure is: do we need a destination
> > > address in a "per-function" manner? It seems like most of the time the
> > > destination address can only be ftrace_call, or ftrace_regs_call. If
> > > the number of destination addresses is very few, then we could
> > > potentially reduce the size of
> > > <func_trace_target_data_8B_per_function>.
> >
> > Yes, we do need a per-function manner. BPF, e.g., uses
> > dynamically/JIT:ed trampolines/targets.
> >
> >
> >
> > Björn
>
> Cheers,
> Andy