From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/entry: Fix unwinding from kprobe on PUSH/POP instruction
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 23:35:19 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230216233519.eacdf4166d4ec20f3046a1e2@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y+4T0EV8SBN09KxA@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:30:24 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:46:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, I was specifically thinking about #DB, why don't we need to
> > > > decrement when we put a hardware breakpoint on a stack modifying op?
> > >
> > > I assume you mean the INT1 instruction. Yeah, maybe we should care
> > > about that.
> >
> > Nah, I was thinking #DB from DR7, but ...
> >
> > > I'm struggling to come up with any decent ideas about how to implement
> > > that. Presumably the #DB handler would have to communicate to the
> > > unwinder somehow whether the given frame is a trap.
> >
> > ... I had forgotten that #DB is not unconditionally trap :/ The worst
> > part seems to be that code breakpoints are faults while data breakpoints
> > are traps.
> >
> > And you so don't want to go decode the DR registers in the unwinder,
> > quality mess this :/
> >
> > Put a breakpoint on the stack and you've got PUSH doing a trap, put a
> > breakpoint on the PUSH instruction and you get a fault, and lo and
> > behold, you get a different unwind :-(
>
> It could be I'm just confusing things... when #DB traps it is actually
> because the instruction is complete, so looking up the ORC based on the
> next instruction is correct, while when #DB faults, it is because the
> instruction has not yet completed and again ORC lookup on IP just works.
>
> So while determining if #DB is trap or fault is a giant pain in the
> arse, it does not actually matter for the unwinder in this case.
>
> And with the INT3 thing the problem is that we've replaced an
> instruction that was supposed to do a stack op.
>
If the kprobe checks whether the original instruction do a stack op and
if so, setting a flag on current_kprobe will help unwinder finds that case?
Of course all INT3 user may need to do this but it should be limited.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-16 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-10 22:42 [PATCH 0/2] x86/unwind/orc: " Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-10 22:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/unwind/orc: Add 'signal' field to ORC metadata Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-11 11:52 ` [tip: objtool/core] " tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-10 22:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/entry: Fix unwinding from kprobe on PUSH/POP instruction Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-11 11:52 ` [tip: objtool/core] " tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-13 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] " Masami Hiramatsu
2023-02-14 11:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-14 17:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-15 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-15 23:16 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-16 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-16 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-16 14:35 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2023-02-16 16:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-16 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-16 16:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-17 12:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20230216233519.eacdf4166d4ec20f3046a1e2@kernel.org \
--to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=chenzhongjin@huawei.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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®