[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250801210238.2207429-2-jolsa@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 23:02:35 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [RFC 1/4] uprobe: Do not emulate/sstep original instruction when ip is changed
If uprobe handler changes instruction pointer we still execute single
step) or emulate the original instruction and increment the (new) ip
with its length.
This makes the new instruction pointer bogus and application will
likely crash on illegal instruction execution.
If user decided to take execution elsewhere, it makes little sense
to execute the original instruction, so let's skip it.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 4c965ba77f9f..dff5509cde67 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -2742,6 +2742,9 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
+ if (instruction_pointer(regs) != bp_vaddr)
+ goto out;
+
if (arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(&uprobe->arch, regs))
goto out;
--
2.50.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists