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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:47:48 +0000 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>, Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 bpf-next 0/1] fprobe: Introduce fprobe function entry/exit probe On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:55:39PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:18:40 +0000 > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:34:46AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > Here is the 13th version of rethook x86 port. This is developed for a part > > > of fprobe series [1] for hooking function return. But since I forgot to send > > > it to arch maintainers, that caused conflict with IBT and SLS mitigation series. > > > Now I picked the x86 rethook part and send it to x86 maintainers to be > > > reviewed. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/164735281449.1084943.12438881786173547153.stgit@devnote2/T/#u > > > > As mentioned elsewhere, I have similar (though not identical) concerns > > to Peter for the arm64 patch, which was equally unreviewed by > > maintainers, and the overall structure. > > Yes, those should be reviewed by arch maintainers. > > > > Note that this patch is still for the bpf-next since the rethook itself > > > is on the bpf-next tree. But since this also uses the ANNOTATE_NOENDBR > > > macro which has been introduced by IBT/ENDBR patch, to build this series > > > you need to merge the tip/master branch with the bpf-next. > > > (hopefully, it is rebased soon) > > > > I thought we were going to drop the series from the bpf-next tree so > > that this could all go through review it had missed thusfar. > > > > Is that still the plan? What's going on? > > Now the arm64 (and other arch) port is reverted from bpf-next. > I'll send those to you soon. Ah; thanks for confirming! > Since bpf-next is focusing on x86 at first, I chose this for review in > this version. Sorry for confusion. No problem; I think the confusion is all my own, so nothing to apologise for! :) > > > The fprobe itself is for providing the function entry/exit probe > > > with multiple probe point. The rethook is a sub-feature to hook the > > > function return as same as kretprobe does. Eventually, I would like > > > to replace the kretprobe's trampoline with this rethook. > > > > Can we please start by converting each architecture to rethook? > > Yes. As Peter pointed, I'm planning to add a kretprobe patches to use > rethook if available in that series. let me prepare it. > > > Ideally we'd unify things such that each architecture only needs *one* > > return trampoline that both ftrace and krpboes can use, which'd be > > significantly easier to get right and manage. > > Agreed :-) Great! Thanks, Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists