lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] powerpc/kprobes: Fix trap address when trap happened in real mode
From
Date


Le 18/02/2020 à 13:33, Masami Hiramatsu a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:04:41 +0100
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
>
>>>> Nevertheless, if one symbol has been forgotten in the blacklist, I think
>>>> it is a problem if it generate Oopses.
>>>
>>> There is a long history also on x86 to make a blacklist. Anyway, how did
>>> you get this error on PPC32? Somewhere would you like to probe and
>>> it is a real mode function? Or, it happened unexpectedly?
>>
>> The first Oops I got was triggered by a WARN_ON() kind of trap in real
>> mode. The trap exception handler called kprobe_handler() which tried to
>> read the instruction at the trap address (which was a real-mode address)
>> so it triggered a Bad Access Fault.
>>
>> This was initially the purpose of my patch.
>
> OK, then filtering the trap reason in kprobe handler is a bit strange.
> It should be done in the previous stage (maybe in trap.c)

See commit
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.6-rc2&id=6cc89bad60a673a24386f1ada83de8a068a78909

> Can we filter it by exception flag or only by checking the instruction
> which causes the exception, or needs get_kprobe()...?

The trap instruction used by kprobe is also used for other purposes like
BUG_ON() or WARN_ON(), so needs get_kprobe()



>
>> After discussion with you, I started looking at what would be the effect
>> of setting a kprobe event in a function which runs in real mode.
>
> If the kprobe single-stepping (or emulation) works in real mode, just
> ignore the kprobes pre/post_handlers and increment nmissed count.
>
> If that doesn't work, we have to call a BUG_ON, because we can not
> continue the code execution. And also, you have to find a way to make
> a blacklist for real mode code.

Yes, it has to be done function by function (hoppefully there's not more
than a dozen).
But I'd like something which can fails gracefully for the functions we
will forget to mark noprobe.

But as a first step I'd really like a bug fix in 5.6 to avoid Oopsing in
kprobe_handler() at a non-kprobe trap.

Christophe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-18 14:58    [W:0.062 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site