From: "Hou Wenlong" <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Garnier" <thgarnie@chromium.org>,
"Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
"Qing Zhang" <zhangqing@loongson.cn>,
<linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 22/43] x86/ftrace: Adapt ftrace nop patching for PIE support
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 11:38:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230429033826.GA91541@k08j02272.eu95sqa> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230428094454.0f2f5049@gandalf.local.home>
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 09:44:54PM +0800, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 17:51:02 +0800
> "Hou Wenlong" <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@chromium.org>
> >
> > From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@chromium.org>
> >
> > When using PIE with function tracing, the compiler generates a
> > call through the GOT (call *__fentry__@GOTPCREL). This instruction
> > takes 6-bytes instead of 5-bytes with a relative call. And -mnop-mcount
> > option is not implemented for -fPIE now.
> >
> > If PIE is enabled, replace the 6th byte of the GOT call by a 1-byte nop
> > so ftrace can handle the previous 5-bytes as before.
>
> Wait! This won't work!
>
> You can't just append another nop to fill in the blanks here. We must
> either have a single 6 byte nop, or we need to refactor the entire logic to
> something that other archs have.
>
> The two nops means that the CPU can take it as two separate commands.
> There's nothing stopping the computer from preempting a task between the
> two. If that happens, and you modify the 1byte nop and 5byte nop with a
> single 6 byte command, when the task get's rescheduled, it will execute the
> last 5 bytes of that 6 byte command and take a general protection fault, and
> likely crash the machine.
>
> NACK on this. It needs a better solution.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
Hi Steve,
Sorry for not providing the original patch link:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190131192533.34130-22-thgarnie@chromium.org/
I drop the Reviewed-by tag due to the change described in commit
message.
This nop patching is only used for the first time (addr = MCOUNT) before
SMP or executing code in module. And ftrace_make_call() is not modified,
then we would use 5 byte direct call to replace the first 5 byte nop
when tracepoint is enabled like before, it's still one instruction. So,
the logic is same like before, patch the first 5 byte when tracepoint is
enabled or disabled during running.
> >
> > [Hou Wenlong: Adapt code change and fix wrong offset calculation in
> > make_nop_x86()]
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-29 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-28 9:50 [PATCH RFC 00/43] x86/pie: Make kernel image's virtual address flexible Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 01/43] x86/crypto: Adapt assembly for PIE support Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 02/43] x86: Add macro to get symbol address " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 03/43] x86: relocate_kernel - Adapt assembly " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 04/43] x86/entry/64: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 05/43] x86: pm-trace: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 06/43] x86/CPU: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 07/43] x86/acpi: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 11:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 08/43] x86/boot/64: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 09/43] x86/power/64: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 10/43] x86/alternatives: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 11/43] x86/irq: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 12/43] x86,rethook: " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 13/43] x86/paravirt: Use relative reference for original instruction Hou Wenlong
2023-06-01 9:29 ` Juergen Gross
2023-06-05 6:40 ` Nadav Amit
2023-06-06 11:35 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 14/43] x86/Kconfig: Introduce new Kconfig for PIE kernel building Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 15/43] x86/PVH: Use fixed_percpu_data to set up GS base Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 16/43] x86-64: Use per-cpu stack canary if supported by compiler Hou Wenlong
2023-05-01 17:27 ` Nick Desaulniers
2023-05-05 6:14 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-05 18:02 ` Nick Desaulniers
2023-05-05 19:06 ` Fangrui Song
2023-05-08 8:06 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-04 10:31 ` Juergen Gross
2023-05-05 3:09 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 17/43] x86/pie: Enable stack protector only if per-cpu stack canary is supported Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 18/43] x86/percpu: Use PC-relative addressing for percpu variable references Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:50 ` [PATCH RFC 19/43] x86/tools: Explicitly include autoconf.h for hostprogs Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 20/43] x86/percpu: Adapt percpu references relocation for PIE support Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 21/43] x86/ftrace: Adapt assembly " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 13:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-04-29 3:43 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 22/43] x86/ftrace: Adapt ftrace nop patching " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 13:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-04-29 3:38 ` Hou Wenlong [this message]
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 23/43] x86/pie: Force hidden visibility for all symbol references Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 24/43] x86/boot/compressed: Adapt sed command to generate voffset.h when PIE is enabled Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 25/43] x86/mm: Make the x86 GOT read-only Hou Wenlong
2023-04-30 14:23 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-05-08 11:40 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 26/43] x86/pie: Add .data.rel.* sections into link script Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 27/43] x86/relocs: Handle PIE relocations Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 28/43] KVM: x86: Adapt assembly for PIE support Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 29/43] x86/PVH: Adapt PVH booting " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 30/43] x86/bpf: Adapt BPF_CALL JIT codegen " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 31/43] x86/modules: Adapt module loading " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 19:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-05-08 8:32 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-08 9:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-05-08 11:40 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-08 17:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-05-09 9:42 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-09 9:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-05-09 12:35 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-10 7:09 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-05-10 8:15 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 32/43] x86/boot/64: Use data relocation to get absloute address when PIE is enabled Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 33/43] objtool: Add validation for x86 PIE support Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 10:28 ` Christophe Leroy
2023-04-28 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-29 4:04 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-04-29 3:52 ` Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 34/43] objtool: Adapt indirect call of __fentry__() for " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 15:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 35/43] x86/pie: Build the kernel as PIE Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 36/43] x86/vsyscall: Don't use set_fixmap() to map vsyscall page Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 37/43] x86/xen: Pin up to VSYSCALL_ADDR when vsyscall page is out of fixmap area Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 38/43] x86/fixmap: Move vsyscall page " Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 39/43] x86/fixmap: Unify FIXADDR_TOP Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 40/43] x86/boot: Fill kernel image puds dynamically Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 41/43] x86/mm: Sort address_markers array when X86 PIE is enabled Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 42/43] x86/pie: Allow kernel image to be relocated in top 512G Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 9:51 ` [PATCH RFC 43/43] x86/boot: Extend relocate range for PIE kernel image Hou Wenlong
2023-04-28 15:22 ` [PATCH RFC 00/43] x86/pie: Make kernel image's virtual address flexible Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-06 7:19 ` Hou Wenlong
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=20230429033826.GA91541@k08j02272.eu95sqa \
--to=houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thgarnie@chromium.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhangqing@loongson.cn \
/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®