[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjTg2cunShA6VbpY@krava>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 15:04:25 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@...en8.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/7] uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up
return probe
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 01:34:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 02:23:08PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Adding uretprobe syscall instead of trap to speed up return probe.
> >
> > At the moment the uretprobe setup/path is:
> >
> > - install entry uprobe
> >
> > - when the uprobe is hit, it overwrites probed function's return address
> > on stack with address of the trampoline that contains breakpoint
> > instruction
> >
> > - the breakpoint trap code handles the uretprobe consumers execution and
> > jumps back to original return address
> >
> > This patch replaces the above trampoline's breakpoint instruction with new
> > ureprobe syscall call. This syscall does exactly the same job as the trap
> > with some more extra work:
> >
> > - syscall trampoline must save original value for rax/r11/rcx registers
> > on stack - rax is set to syscall number and r11/rcx are changed and
> > used by syscall instruction
> >
> > - the syscall code reads the original values of those registers and
> > restore those values in task's pt_regs area
> >
> > - only caller from trampoline exposed in '[uprobes]' is allowed,
> > the process will receive SIGILL signal otherwise
> >
>
> Did you consider shadow stacks? IIRC we currently have userspace shadow
> stack support available, and that will utterly break all of this.
nope.. I guess it's the extra ret instruction in the trampoline that would
make it crash?
>
> It would be really nice if the new scheme would consider shadow stacks.
I seem to have the hw with support for user_shstk, let me test that
thanks,
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists