lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: kprobes: Return DBG_HOOK_ERROR if kprobes can not handle a BRK
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 15:08:52 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:39:21PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> >
> > Return DBG_HOOK_ERROR if kprobes can not handle a BRK because it
> > fails to find a kprobe corresponding to the address.
> >
> > Since arm64 kprobes uses stop_machine based text patching for removing
> > BRK, it ensures all running kprobe_break_handler() is done at that point.
> > And after removing the BRK, it removes the kprobe from its hash list.
> > Thus, if the kprobe_break_handler() fails to find kprobe from hash list,
> > there is a bug.
>
> IIUC this relies on BRK handling not being preemptible, which is something
> we've repeatedly considered changing along with a bunch of other debug
> exception handling.

Interesting idea... and it also need many changes in kprobe itself.

>
> In case we do try to change that in future, it would be good to have a comment
> somewhere to that effect.

Hmm, it would fundamentally change the assumptions that kprobes relies on,
and would require a lot of thought again. (e.g. current running kprobe is
stored in per-cpu variable, it should be per-task. etc.)

>
> I think there are other ways we could synchronise against that (e.g. using RCU
> tasks rude) if we ever do that, and this patch looks good to me.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > index d2ae37f89774..ea56b22d4da8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static void __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +static int __kprobes
> > +kprobe_breakpoint_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
> > {
> > struct kprobe *p, *cur_kprobe;
> > struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb;
> > @@ -308,39 +309,45 @@ static void __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > cur_kprobe = kprobe_running();
> >
> > p = get_kprobe((kprobe_opcode_t *) addr);
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!p)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Something went wrong. This must be put by kprobe, but we
> > + * could not find corresponding kprobes. Let the kernel handle
> > + * this error case.
> > + */
>
> Could we make this:
>
> /*
> * Something went wrong. This BRK used an immediate reserved
> * for kprobes, but we couldn't find any corresponding probe.
> */

OK.

>
> > + return DBG_HOOK_ERROR;
> > + }
> >
> > - if (p) {
> > - if (cur_kprobe) {
> > - if (reenter_kprobe(p, regs, kcb))
> > - return;
> > - } else {
> > - /* Probe hit */
> > - set_current_kprobe(p);
> > - kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * If we have no pre-handler or it returned 0, we
> > - * continue with normal processing. If we have a
> > - * pre-handler and it returned non-zero, it will
> > - * modify the execution path and no need to single
> > - * stepping. Let's just reset current kprobe and exit.
> > - */
> > - if (!p->pre_handler || !p->pre_handler(p, regs)) {
> > - setup_singlestep(p, regs, kcb, 0);
> > - } else
> > - reset_current_kprobe();
> > - }
> > + if (cur_kprobe) {
> > + /* Hit a kprobe inside another kprobe */
> > + if (!reenter_kprobe(p, regs, kcb))
> > + return DBG_HOOK_ERROR;
> > + } else {
> > + /* Probe hit */
> > + set_current_kprobe(p);
> > + kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we have no pre-handler or it returned 0, we
> > + * continue with normal processing. If we have a
> > + * pre-handler and it returned non-zero, it will
> > + * modify the execution path and no need to single
> > + * stepping. Let's just reset current kprobe and exit.
> > + */
>
> Minor wording nit: could we replace:
>
> no need to single stepping.
>
> With:
>
> not need to single-step.

OK, I'll update both in v2.

Thank you!

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> > + if (!p->pre_handler || !p->pre_handler(p, regs))
> > + setup_singlestep(p, regs, kcb, 0);
> > + else
> > + reset_current_kprobe();
> > }
> > - /*
> > - * The breakpoint instruction was removed right
> > - * after we hit it. Another cpu has removed
> > - * either a probepoint or a debugger breakpoint
> > - * at this address. In either case, no further
> > - * handling of this interrupt is appropriate.
> > - * Return back to original instruction, and continue.
> > - */
> > +
> > + return DBG_HOOK_HANDLED;
> > }
> >
> > +static struct break_hook kprobes_break_hook = {
> > + .imm = KPROBES_BRK_IMM,
> > + .fn = kprobe_breakpoint_handler,
> > +};
> > +
> > static int __kprobes
> > kprobe_breakpoint_ss_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
> > {
> > @@ -365,18 +372,6 @@ static struct break_hook kprobes_break_ss_hook = {
> > .fn = kprobe_breakpoint_ss_handler,
> > };
> >
> > -static int __kprobes
> > -kprobe_breakpoint_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
> > -{
> > - kprobe_handler(regs);
> > - return DBG_HOOK_HANDLED;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static struct break_hook kprobes_break_hook = {
> > - .imm = KPROBES_BRK_IMM,
> > - .fn = kprobe_breakpoint_handler,
> > -};
> > -
> > /*
> > * Provide a blacklist of symbols identifying ranges which cannot be kprobed.
> > * This blacklist is exposed to userspace via debugfs (kprobes/blacklist).
> >


--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-01 17:08    [W:0.068 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site