On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:20:07 +0000
James Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 15/01/2019 06:25, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Use arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist() instead of
> > arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() so that we can see the full
> > blacklisted symbols under the debugfs.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > index b9e9758b6534..6c066c34c8a4 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > @@ -465,26 +465,30 @@ kprobe_breakpoint_handler(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > unsigned int esr)
> > return DBG_HOOK_HANDLED;
> > }
> >
> > -bool arch_within_kprobe_blacklist(unsigned long addr)
> > +int __init arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(void)
> > {
> > - if ((addr >= (unsigned long)__kprobes_text_start &&
> > - addr < (unsigned long)__kprobes_text_end) ||
> > - (addr >= (unsigned long)__entry_text_start &&
> > - addr < (unsigned long)__entry_text_end) ||
> > - (addr >= (unsigned long)__idmap_text_start &&
> > - addr < (unsigned long)__idmap_text_end) ||
>
> > - in_exception_text(addr))
>
> You added this one in the previous patch, but it disappears here.
Yes, it is easy to explain how we transcribe from
arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() to arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist().
>
>
> > - return true;
> > -
> > - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) {
> > - if ((addr >= (unsigned long)__hyp_text_start &&
> > - addr < (unsigned long)__hyp_text_end) ||
> > - (addr >= (unsigned long)__hyp_idmap_text_start &&
> > - addr < (unsigned long)__hyp_idmap_text_end))
> > - return true;
> > - }
> > -
> > - return false;
> > + int ret;
>
>
> > + ret = kprobe_add_area_blacklist((unsigned long)__kprobes_text_start,
> > + (unsigned long)__kprobes_text_end);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> Now that we have arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(), does the arch-code need to
> blacklist the kprobes section itself?
Ah, good catch! No, we don't need it here. Sorry I worked on older patch.
I'll update it.
> The weak arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() will test it at kprobe-load time, and
> populate_kprobe_blacklist() adds it to the list before it calls
> arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist().
>
> Won't this result in duplicate entries?
yes, so it should not.
>
>
> > + ret = kprobe_add_area_blacklist((unsigned long)__entry_text_start,
> > + (unsigned long)__entry_text_end);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> > + ret = kprobe_add_area_blacklist((unsigned long)__idmap_text_start,
> > + (unsigned long)__idmap_text_end);
>
> > + if (ret || is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
> > + return ret;
>
>
> Hmmm, I think we have a bug here today.
OK.
>
> This is saying we can kprobe KVM when we have VHE, because all of KVMs code
> runs
> at the same exception-level as the kernel. Which is true...
> But KVM switches VBAR_EL1, so if we run over one of kprobes BRK instructions,
> we're going to hyp-panic, because KVM doesn't handle synchronous exceptions
> from
> EL2.
>
> The __hyp_text also contains the guest entry/exit code, which we mustn't
> probe,
> even on VHE.
Hmm, I'm not sure when the original code decided this. But it sounds reasonable.
>
> I think we should always blacklist the __hyp_text, and KVM should mark its
> vhe-only functions with __kprobes. I'll post patches for this.
OK, then I should wait for that, because this series is a kind of improvement.
But your's is a bugfix, that should be backported to stable.
Thank you,
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
>
> > + ret = kprobe_add_area_blacklist((unsigned long)__hyp_text_start,
> > + (unsigned long)__hyp_text_end);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = kprobe_add_area_blacklist((unsigned long)__hyp_idmap_text_start,
> > + (unsigned long)__hyp_idmap_text_end);
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > void __kprobes __used *trampoline_probe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
