lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [1]   [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
Hi Peter,

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 03:07:05PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> So, instead of this change, can you try below?
>> This introduce the arch_adjust_kprobe_addr() and use it in the kprobe_addr()
>> so that it can handle the case that user passed the probe address in
>> _text+OFFSET format.
>
> It works a little... at the very least it still needs
> arch_kprobe_on_func_entry() allowing offset 4.
>
> But looking at this, we've got:
>
> kprobe_on_func_entry(addr, sym, offset)
> _kprobe_addr(addr, sym, offset)
> if (sym)
> addr = kprobe_lookup_name()
> = kallsyms_lookup_name()
> arch_adjust_kprobe_addr(addr+offset)
> skip_endbr()
> kallsyms_loopup_size_offset(addr, ...)
> kallsyms_lookup_size_offset(addr, NULL, &offset)
> arch_kprobe_on_func_entry(offset)
>
> Which is _3_ kallsyms lookups and 3 weak/arch hooks.
>
> Surely we can make this a little more streamlined? The below seems to
> work.
>
> I think with a little care and testing it should be possible to fold all
> the magic of PowerPC's kprobe_lookup_name() into this one hook as well,
> meaning we can get rid of kprobe_lookup_name() entirely. Naveen?

This is timely. I've been looking at addressing a similar set of issues
on powerpc:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1645096227.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com

>
> This then gets us down to a 1 kallsyms call and 1 arch hook. Hmm?

I was going to propose making _kprobe_addr() into a weak function in
place of kprobe_lookup_name() in response to Masami in the other thread,
but this is looking better.

>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c | 34 +++++++++++++++---------
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++
> include/linux/kprobes.h | 3 +-
> kernel/kprobes.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 4 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

I will take a closer look at this tomorrow and revert.


Thanks,
- Naveen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-01 18:05    [W:0.429 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site