Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1587219
| From | Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[] |
| Date | 2017-02-24 02:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tecyt-Yd-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <te6t3-51I-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:30:02 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > Hi Masami, > > I just wondered what would happen if I put a probe on an instruction > that was listed in __ex_table[] or __bug_table[]. Ah, thanks for reporting, I know __ex_table issue and fixed, but I didn't care about __bug_table. > And it looks like it will happily do that. It will then run the > instruction out-of-line, and when said instruction traps, the > instruction address will not match the one listed in either __ex_table[] > or __bug_table[] and badness will happen. For the __ex_table[], at least on x86, kprobes already handles it in kprobe_fault_handler, which restore regs->ip to original place when a pagefault happens on singlestepping. > If kprobes does indeed not check this, we should probably fix it, if it > does do check this, could you point me to it? Yeah, for BUG() case, as far as I can see, there is no check about that. So, there are 2 ways to fix it up, one is to just reject to put kprobes on UD2, another is fixup trap address as we did for exceptions_table. I think latter is better because if there is a divide error happening on single-step, anyway we should fixup the address... Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
kprobes vs __ex_table[] Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-23 19:40 +0100
Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[] Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-24 02:10 +0100
Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[] Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-24 10:30 +0100
Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[] Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-24 17:40 +0100
Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[] Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-24 18:50 +0100
[RFC PATCH 1/2] kprobes/x86: Use probe_kernel_read instead of memcpy Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-27 17:20 +0100
[RFC PATCH 2/2] kprobes/x86: Exit single-stepping before trying fixup_exception Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-27 17:20 +0100
[RFC PATCH 0/2] kprobes/x86: Handle probing on ex_table cases Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-27 17:20 +0100
Re: kprobes vs __ex_table[] Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 17:30 +0100
[PATCH] [BUGFIX] kprobes/x86: Fix to check __ex_table entry by probed address Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 18:50 +0100
csiph-web