lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> With IBT on, sym+0 is no longer the __fentry__ site.
>
> NOTE: the architecture has a special case and *does* allow placing an
> INT3 breakpoint over ENDBR in which case #BP has precedence over #CP
> and as such we don't need to disallow probing these instructions.
>
> NOTE: irrespective of the above; there is a complication in that
> direct branches to functions are rewritten to not execute ENDBR, so
> any breakpoint thereon might miss lots of actual function executions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 11 +++++++++++
> kernel/kprobes.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> @@ -1156,3 +1162,8 @@ int arch_trampoline_kprobe(struct kprobe
> {
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +bool arch_kprobe_on_func_entry(unsigned long offset)
> +{
> + return offset <= 4*HAS_KERNEL_IBT;
> +}

Let's avoid magic (though obvious right now) literal values. Can the "4"
be changed to a new ENBR_INSTR_SIZE macro or something?

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-25 01:59    [W:0.874 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site