lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] rethook: kprobes: x86: Replace kretprobe with rethook on x86
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:09:40 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 01:29:01PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Replaces the kretprobe code with rethook on x86. With this patch,
> > kretprobe on x86 uses the rethook instead of kretprobe specific
> > trampoline code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1
> > arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h | 23 +++----
> > arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 1
> > arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/common.h | 1
> > arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 107 ----------------------------------
> > arch/x86/kernel/rethook.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 6 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/rethook.c
>
> I'm thinking you'll find it builds much better with this on...

Oops, Thanks. I've tested it with framepointer based unwinder...

>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> index 2de3c8c5eba9..794fdef2501a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> @@ -550,15 +550,15 @@ bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> }
> /*
> * There is a small chance to interrupt at the entry of
> - * __kretprobe_trampoline() where the ORC info doesn't exist.
> - * That point is right after the RET to __kretprobe_trampoline()
> + * arch_rethook_trampoline() where the ORC info doesn't exist.
> + * That point is right after the RET to arch_rethook_trampoline()
> * which was modified return address.
> - * At that point, the @addr_p of the unwind_recover_kretprobe()
> + * At that point, the @addr_p of the unwind_recover_rethook()
> * (this has to point the address of the stack entry storing
> * the modified return address) must be "SP - (a stack entry)"
> * because SP is incremented by the RET.
> */
> - state->ip = unwind_recover_kretprobe(state, state->ip,
> + state->ip = unwind_recover_rethook(state, state->ip,
> (unsigned long *)(state->sp - sizeof(long)));
> state->regs = (struct pt_regs *)sp;
> state->prev_regs = NULL;
> @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> goto err;
> }
> /* See UNWIND_HINT_TYPE_REGS case comment. */
> - state->ip = unwind_recover_kretprobe(state, state->ip,
> + state->ip = unwind_recover_rethook(state, state->ip,
> (unsigned long *)(state->sp - sizeof(long)));
>
> if (state->full_regs)


--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-25 13:56    [W:0.076 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site