lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] kprobes/x86: Simplify indirect-jump check in retpoline
From
Date
On 2018/10/31 22:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:53:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:01:20PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>> On 2018/10/30 16:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:55:06PM -0700, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>>> Since CONFIG_RETPOLINE hard depends on compiler support now, so
>>>>> replacing indirect-jump check with the range check is safe in that case.
>>>>
>>>> Can we put kprobes on module init text before we run alternatives on it?
>>>
>>> Forgive me I doesn't understand your question. Do you mean this patch impact
>>> kprobes on module init text?
>>
>> In that case we would still see the indirect paravirt calls for example,
>> and we'd still need that cascade you took out.

Understood.
In another case when loading a non-retpoline module, we suffer the same.
>>
>> Now, I'm not at all sure we're able to use kprobes at those times, so it
>> might be a non-issue.

Not sure, but if it's possible then alternative patching may cover the
kprobes, it looks like a bug.
>
> Hmm, what about the case where we have RETPOLINE runtime disabled? Then
> the CALL_NOSPEC alternative patches in an indirect call again, and the
> retpolines are gone.

Is RETPOLINE runtime toggle supported in upstream? I don't see such code.
>
> Does that not need the __insn_is_indirect_jump() thing?

Yes it's needed if RETPOLINE runtime disabled.

Based on all above reasons, I'd like to drop this patch.

Thanks
Zhenzhong

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-01 03:02    [W:0.063 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site