From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia@transsion.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Jiazi Li <jiazi.li@transsion.com>, Pu Hu <hupu@transsion.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ada.coupriediaz@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Mark Kprobe debug exception paths noinstr
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 14:23:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auSobyKxtfnn0geU@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1786603168.git.hongyan.xia@transsion.com>
[+Ada]
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 06:47:31AM +0000, Hongyan Xia wrote:
> From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia@transsion.com>
>
> Commit 879a6754d3d1 ("arm64: kprobes: Only handle faults originating
> from XOL slot") and 23f851ac0078 ("arm64: kprobes: Allow reentering
> kprobes while single-stepping") band-aided two corner cases in the arm64
> kprobe path: Nested page faults inside Kprobe and nested Kprobe SS
> handling. Although the two patches were taken, Will asked whether we
> should keep patching things like this each time we find a corner case,
> and whether making Kprobe noinstr is the correct answer [1].
>
> This series attempts to do exactly that: Making the Kprobe path noinstr.
> The kprobe handlers become noinstr end to end. Apart from marking
> functions noinstr, we also force-inline some static inline helper
> functions because certain compilers still outline them, breaking
> noinstr.
>
> Note that arm64 has no objtool so at the moment noinstr is more of a
> contract that must be followed, instead of actually enforcing control
> flow. Instrumentation can still happen if someone with root privileges
> does something stupid, but now it is regarded as a bug rather than a
> legitimate use case that the kernel needs to cover.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/alpuL10h7-OK2hFb@willie-the-truck/
>
> Changed in v2:
> - Remove instrumentation_{begin/end}() markers as they do nothing
> - Fold __always_inline into the patches that actually need them
> - Remove the debug exception path changes unrelated to Kprobe. This
> series is only about Kprobe for now
> - Drop the kprobe_page_fault() patch for now. It's a question whether we
> even need it at all. Will send a patch for it separately.
>
> Hongyan Xia (4):
> arm64/entry: Make debug_exception_enter/exit() noinstr
> arm64/debug: Make the Kprobe functions noinstr
> arm64/kprobes: Make the entire Kprobe noinstr
> Revert "arm64: kprobes: Allow reentering kprobes while
> single-stepping"
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kprobes.h | 15 ++------
> arch/arm64/include/asm/percpu.h | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h | 4 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h | 4 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 6 +--
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c | 13 ++-----
> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 59 ++++++++++--------------------
> include/linux/kprobes.h | 8 ++--
Given the lack of objtool enforcement (as you note above), I wonder
whether it would be more robust to do this on a per-compilation unit
basis? i.e. disable instrumentation for debug-monitors.c, entry-common.c
and kprobes.c?
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to do that in the Makefile :/ In
which case, perhaps this series is the best we can do, but I thought I'd
ask the question in case somebody has any bright ideas.
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-30 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 6:47 Hongyan Xia
2026-08-13 6:49 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] arm64/entry: Make debug_exception_enter/exit() noinstr Hongyan Xia
2026-08-13 15:57 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2026-08-13 6:49 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] arm64/debug: Make the Kprobe functions noinstr Hongyan Xia
2026-08-13 15:59 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2026-08-13 6:50 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm64/kprobes: Make the entire Kprobe noinstr Hongyan Xia
2026-08-13 6:50 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] Revert "arm64: kprobes: Allow reentering kprobes while single-stepping" Hongyan Xia
2026-10-30 14:23 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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=auSobyKxtfnn0geU@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=ada.coupriediaz@arm.com \
--cc=hongyan.xia@transsion.com \
--cc=hupu@transsion.com \
--cc=jiazi.li@transsion.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhiramat@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®