| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:04:59 +0530
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Yauheni Kaliuta <ykaliuta@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix test_attach_probe for
powerpc uprobes
On 2021/03/04 04:55PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:46:27AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > > On 2021/03/02 11:35AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:58:53PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 3/1/21 11:04 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >> > > When testing uprobes we the test gets GEP (Global Entry Point)
> > >> > > address from kallsyms, but then the function is called locally
> > >> > > so the uprobe is not triggered.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Fixing this by adjusting the address to LEP (Local Entry Point)
> > >> > > for powerpc arch.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > >> > > ---
> > >> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> > >> > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> > >> > > index a0ee87c8e1ea..c3cfb48d3ed0 100644
> > >> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> > >> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> > >> > > @@ -2,6 +2,22 @@
> > >> > > #include <test_progs.h>
> > >> > > #include "test_attach_probe.skel.h"
> > >> > > +#if defined(__powerpc64__)
> > >
> > > This needs to be specific to ELF v2 ABI, so you'll need to check
> > > _CALL_ELF. See commit d5c2e2c17ae1d6 ("perf probe ppc64le: Prefer symbol
> > > table lookup over DWARF") for an example.
> > >
> > >> > > +/*
> > >> > > + * We get the GEP (Global Entry Point) address from kallsyms,
> > >> > > + * but then the function is called locally, so we need to adjust
> > >> > > + * the address to get LEP (Local Entry Point).
> > >> >
> > >> > Any documentation in the kernel about this behavior? This will
> > >> > help to validate the change without trying with powerpc64 qemu...
> > >
> > > I don't think we have documented this in the kernel anywhere, but this
> > > is specific to the ELF v2 ABI and is described there:
> > > - 2.3.2.1. Function Prologue:
> > > http://cdn.openpowerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/leabi/content/dbdoclet.50655240___RefHeading___Toc377640597.html
> > > - 3.4.1. Symbol Values:
> > > http://cdn.openpowerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/leabi/content/dbdoclet.50655241_95185.html
> >
> > There's a comment in ppc_function_entry(), but I don't think we have any
> > actual "documentation".
> >
> > static inline unsigned long ppc_function_entry(void *func)
> > {
> > #ifdef PPC64_ELF_ABI_v2
> > u32 *insn = func;
> >
> > /*
> > * A PPC64 ABIv2 function may have a local and a global entry
> > * point. We need to use the local entry point when patching
> > * functions, so identify and step over the global entry point
> > * sequence.
>
> hm, so I need to do the instructions check below as well
It's a good check, but probably not necessary. In most functions, we
expect to be able to probe two instructions later without much of a
change to affect function tracing for userspace. For this reason, we
just probe at an offset of 8 as a reasonable fallback.
It is definetely good if we can come up with a better approach though.
>
> > *
> > * The global entry point sequence is always of the form:
> > *
> > * addis r2,r12,XXXX
> > * addi r2,r2,XXXX
> > *
> > * A linker optimisation may convert the addis to lis:
> > *
> > * lis r2,XXXX
> > * addi r2,r2,XXXX
> > */
> > if ((((*insn & OP_RT_RA_MASK) == ADDIS_R2_R12) ||
> > ((*insn & OP_RT_RA_MASK) == LIS_R2)) &&
> > ((*(insn+1) & OP_RT_RA_MASK) == ADDI_R2_R2))
>
> is this check/instructions specific to kernel code?
>
> In the test prog I see following instructions:
>
> Dump of assembler code for function get_base_addr:
> 0x0000000010034cb0 <+0>: lis r2,4256
> 0x0000000010034cb4 <+4>: addi r2,r2,31488
> ...
>
> but first instruction does not match the check in kernel code above:
>
> 1.insn value: 0x3c4010a0
> 2.insn value: 0x38427b00
>
> the used defines are:
> #define OP_RT_RA_MASK 0xffff0000UL
> #define LIS_R2 0x3c020000UL
> #define ADDIS_R2_R12 0x3c4c0000UL
> #define ADDI_R2_R2 0x38420000UL
Good catch! That's wrong, and I suspect we haven't noticed since kernel
almost always ends up using the addis variant. I will send a fix for
this.
>
>
> maybe we could skip the check, and run the test twice: first on
> kallsym address and if the uprobe is not hit we will run it again
> on address + 8
Sure, like I mentioned, I'm fine with any approach. Offset'ing into the
function by 8 is easy and generally works. Re-trying is fine too. The
proper approach will requires us to consult the symbol table and check
st_other field [see commit 0b3c2264ae30ed ("perf symbols: Fix kallsyms
perf test on ppc64le")]
Thanks,
- Naveen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists