mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc: "David Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Yang Shi" <yang.shi@linaro.org>,
	"Zi Shen Lim" <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Andrey Ryabinin" <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
	"yalin wang" <yalin.wang2010@gmail.com>,
	"Li Bin" <huawei.libin@huawei.com>,
	"Jisheng Zhang" <jszhang@marvell.com>,
	"John Blackwood" <john.blackwood@ccur.com>,
	"Pratyush Anand" <panand@redhat.com>,
	"Huang Shijie" <shijie.huang@arm.com>,
	"Dave P Martin" <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
	"Petr Mladek" <pmladek@suse.com>,
	"Vladimir Murzin" <Vladimir.Murzin@arm.com>,
	"Steve Capper" <steve.capper@linaro.org>,
	"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	"Marc Zyngier" <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Sandeepa Prabhu" <sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com>,
	"William Cohen" <wcohen@redhat.com>,
	"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
	"Adam Buchbinder" <adam.buchbinder@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Jens Wiklander" <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
	"Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:55:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160726165543.GG2423@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ce78f577-d14a-7b12-c96f-a6ebd8866283@linaro.org>

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:50:08AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 25/07/16 18:13, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:51:32AM -0400, David Long wrote:
> >>On 07/22/2016 06:16 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, David Long wrote:
> >>>[...]
> >>>The document states: "Up to MAX_STACK_SIZE bytes are copied". That means
> >>>the arch code could always copy less but never more than MAX_STACK_SIZE.
> >>>What we are proposing is that we should try to guess how much to copy
> >>>based on the FP value (caller's frame) and, if larger than
> >>>MAX_STACK_SIZE, skip the probe hook entirely. I don't think this goes
> >>>against the kprobes.txt document but at least it (a) may improve the
> >>>performance slightly by avoiding unnecessary copy and (b) it avoids
> >>>undefined behaviour if we ever encounter a jprobe with arguments passed
> >>>on the stack beyond MAX_STACK_SIZE.
> >>
> >>OK, it sounds like an improvement. I do worry a little about unexpected side
> >>effects.
> >
> >You get more unexpected side effects by not saving/restoring the whole
> >stack. We looked into this on Friday and came to the conclusion that
> >there is no safe way for kprobes to know which arguments passed on the
> >stack should be preserved, at least not with the current API.
> >
> >Basically the AArch64 PCS states that for arguments passed on the stack
> >(e.g. they can't fit in registers), the caller allocates memory for them
> >(on its own stack) and passes the pointer to the callee. Unfortunately,
> >the frame pointer seems to be decremented correspondingly to cover the
> >arguments, so we don't really have a way to tell how much to copy.
> >Copying just the caller's stack frame isn't safe either since a
> >callee/caller receiving such argument on the stack may passed it down to
> >a callee without copying (I couldn't find anything in the PCS stating
> >that this isn't allowed).
> 
> The PCS[1] seems (at least to me) to be pretty clear that "the address of
> the first stacked argument is defined to be the initial value of SP".
> 
> I think it is only the return value (when stacked via the x8 pointer) that
> can be passed through an intermediate function in the way described above.
> Isn't it OK for a jprobe to clobber this memory? The underlying function
> will overwrite whatever the jprobe put there anyway.
> 
> Am I overlooking some additional detail in the PCS?

I'm not sure I fully understand the PCS. I played with some random hacks
to test_kprobes.c (see below) and the address passed for a big struct
didn't look like the bottom of the stack.

diff --git a/kernel/test_kprobes.c b/kernel/test_kprobes.c
index 0dbab6d1acb4..6ed7be02a560 100644
--- a/kernel/test_kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/test_kprobes.c
@@ -22,14 +22,18 @@
 
 #define div_factor 3
 
+struct dummy {
+	char dummy_array[MAX_STACK_SIZE * 2];
+};
+
 static u32 rand1, preh_val, posth_val, jph_val;
 static int errors, handler_errors, num_tests;
-static u32 (*target)(u32 value);
+static u32 (*target)(u32 value, struct dummy d);
 static u32 (*target2)(u32 value);
 
-static noinline u32 kprobe_target(u32 value)
+static noinline u32 kprobe_target(u32 value, struct dummy d)
 {
-	return (value / div_factor);
+	return (value / div_factor - d.dummy_array[0] + d.dummy_array[1]);
 }
 
 static int kp_pre_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
@@ -54,9 +58,11 @@ static struct kprobe kp = {
 	.post_handler = kp_post_handler
 };
 
-static int test_kprobe(void)
+static int noinline test_kprobe(void)
 {
 	int ret;
+	static struct dummy dummy;
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 
 	ret = register_kprobe(&kp);
 	if (ret < 0) {
@@ -64,7 +70,8 @@ static int test_kprobe(void)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = target(rand1);
+	ret = target(rand1, dummy);
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 	unregister_kprobe(&kp);
 
 	if (preh_val == 0) {
@@ -111,6 +118,8 @@ static int test_kprobes(void)
 {
 	int ret;
 	struct kprobe *kps[2] = {&kp, &kp2};
+	struct dummy dummy;
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 
 	/* addr and flags should be cleard for reusing kprobe. */
 	kp.addr = NULL;
@@ -123,7 +132,7 @@ static int test_kprobes(void)
 
 	preh_val = 0;
 	posth_val = 0;
-	ret = target(rand1);
+	ret = target(rand1, dummy);
 
 	if (preh_val == 0) {
 		pr_err("kprobe pre_handler not called\n");
@@ -154,7 +163,7 @@ static int test_kprobes(void)
 
 }
 
-static u32 j_kprobe_target(u32 value)
+static u32 j_kprobe_target(u32 value, struct dummy d)
 {
 	if (value != rand1) {
 		handler_errors++;
@@ -174,6 +183,8 @@ static struct jprobe jp = {
 static int test_jprobe(void)
 {
 	int ret;
+	struct dummy dummy;
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 
 	ret = register_jprobe(&jp);
 	if (ret < 0) {
@@ -181,7 +192,7 @@ static int test_jprobe(void)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = target(rand1);
+	ret = target(rand1, dummy);
 	unregister_jprobe(&jp);
 	if (jph_val == 0) {
 		pr_err("jprobe handler not called\n");
@@ -200,6 +211,8 @@ static int test_jprobes(void)
 {
 	int ret;
 	struct jprobe *jps[2] = {&jp, &jp2};
+	struct dummy dummy;
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 
 	/* addr and flags should be cleard for reusing kprobe. */
 	jp.kp.addr = NULL;
@@ -211,7 +224,7 @@ static int test_jprobes(void)
 	}
 
 	jph_val = 0;
-	ret = target(rand1);
+	ret = target(rand1, dummy);
 	if (jph_val == 0) {
 		pr_err("jprobe handler not called\n");
 		handler_errors++;
@@ -262,6 +275,8 @@ static struct kretprobe rp = {
 static int test_kretprobe(void)
 {
 	int ret;
+	struct dummy dummy;
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 
 	ret = register_kretprobe(&rp);
 	if (ret < 0) {
@@ -269,7 +284,7 @@ static int test_kretprobe(void)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = target(rand1);
+	ret = target(rand1, dummy);
 	unregister_kretprobe(&rp);
 	if (krph_val != rand1) {
 		pr_err("kretprobe handler not called\n");
@@ -306,6 +321,8 @@ static int test_kretprobes(void)
 {
 	int ret;
 	struct kretprobe *rps[2] = {&rp, &rp2};
+	struct dummy dummy;
+	memset(&dummy, 10, sizeof(dummy));
 
 	/* addr and flags should be cleard for reusing kprobe. */
 	rp.kp.addr = NULL;
@@ -317,7 +334,7 @@ static int test_kretprobes(void)
 	}
 
 	krph_val = 0;
-	ret = target(rand1);
+	ret = target(rand1, dummy);
 	if (krph_val != rand1) {
 		pr_err("kretprobe handler not called\n");
 		handler_errors++;

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-26 16:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-08 16:35 [PATCH v15 00/10] arm64: Add kernel probes (kprobes) support David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 01/10] arm64: Add HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API feature David Long
2016-07-15 10:57   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-15 14:51     ` David Long
2016-07-15 15:13       ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-15 17:51         ` David Long
2016-07-19 14:17           ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 02/10] arm64: Add more test functions to insn.c David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 03/10] arm64: add conditional instruction simulation support David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 04/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support David Long
2016-07-20  9:36   ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 11:16     ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-20 19:08     ` David Long
2016-07-21  8:44       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 15:49   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-21 14:50     ` David Long
2016-07-20 16:09   ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 16:28     ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-20 16:31       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 16:46       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 17:04         ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-21 16:33     ` David Long
2016-07-21 17:16       ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-21 17:23       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-21 18:33         ` David Long
2016-07-22 10:16           ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-22 15:51             ` David Long
2016-07-25 17:13               ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-25 22:27                 ` David Long
2016-07-27 11:50                   ` Daniel Thompson
2016-07-27 22:13                     ` David Long
2016-07-28 14:40                       ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-29  9:01                         ` Daniel Thompson
2016-08-04  4:47                           ` David Long
2016-08-08 11:13                             ` Daniel Thompson
2016-08-08 14:29                               ` David Long
2016-08-08 22:49                                 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2016-08-09 17:23                                 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-08-10 20:41                                   ` David Long
2016-08-08 22:19                             ` Masami Hiramatsu
2016-07-26  9:50                 ` Daniel Thompson
2016-07-26 16:55                   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2016-07-27 10:01                     ` Dave Martin
2016-07-26 17:54                   ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-27 11:19                     ` Daniel Thompson
2016-07-27 11:38                       ` Dave Martin
2016-07-27 11:42                         ` Daniel Thompson
2016-07-27 13:38                       ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 05/10] arm64: Blacklist non-kprobe-able symbol David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 06/10] arm64: Treat all entry code as non-kprobe-able David Long
2016-07-15 16:47   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-19  0:53     ` David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 07/10] arm64: kprobes instruction simulation support David Long
2016-07-10 22:51   ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 08/10] arm64: Add trampoline code for kretprobes David Long
2016-07-19 13:46   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-20 18:28     ` David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 09/10] arm64: Add kernel return probes support (kretprobes) David Long
2016-07-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v15 10/10] kprobes: Add arm64 case in kprobe example module David Long
2016-07-14 16:22 ` [PATCH v15 00/10] arm64: Add kernel probes (kprobes) support Catalin Marinas
2016-07-14 17:09   ` William Cohen
2016-07-15  7:50     ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-15  8:01       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-15  8:59         ` Alex Bennée
2016-07-15  9:04           ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-15  9:53           ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-14 17:56   ` David Long
2016-07-19 13:57   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-19 14:01     ` David Long
2016-07-19 18:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-07-19 19:38   ` David Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160726165543.GG2423@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
    --cc=Vladimir.Murzin@arm.com \
    --cc=adam.buchbinder@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
    --cc=dave.long@linaro.org \
    --cc=huawei.libin@huawei.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
    --cc=john.blackwood@ccur.com \
    --cc=jszhang@marvell.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=panand@redhat.com \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
    --cc=sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com \
    --cc=shijie.huang@arm.com \
    --cc=steve.capper@linaro.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=wcohen@redhat.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=yalin.wang2010@gmail.com \
    --cc=yang.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=zlim.lnx@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®