[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: kprobes: Move extable address check into arch_prepare_kprobe()

On 09/01/2019 02:05, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:13:36 +0000
> James Morse <> wrote:
>> On 08/01/2019 02:39, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:05:18 +0000
>>> James Morse <> wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2018 06:40, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>>> Move extable address check into arch_prepare_kprobe() from
>>>>> arch_within_kprobe_blacklist().
>>>> I'm trying to work out the pattern for what should go in the blacklist, and what
>>>> should be rejected by the arch code.
>>>> It seems address-ranges should be blacklisted as the contents don't matter.
>>>> easy-example: the idmap text.
>>> Yes, more precisely, the code smaller than a function (symbol), it must be
>>> rejected by arch_prepare_kprobe(), since blacklist is poplated based on
>>> kallsyms.
>> Ah, okay, so the pattern is the blacklist should only be for whole symbols,
>> (which explains why its usually based on sections).
> Correct. Actually, the blacklist is generated based on the symbol info
> from symbol address.
>> I see kprobe_add_ksym_blacklist() would go wrong if you give it something like:
>> platform_drv_probe+0x50/0xb0, as it will log platform_drv_probe+0x50 as the
>> start_addr and platform_drv_probe+0x50+0xb0 as the end.
> Yes, it expects given address is the entry of a symbol.

>> But how does anything from the arch code's blacklist get into the
>> kprobe_blacklist list?
> It should be done via arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist().

>> We don't have an arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(), so rely on
>> within_kprobe_blacklist() calling arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() with the
>> address, as well as walking kprobe_blacklist.
>> Is this cleanup ahead of a series that does away with
>> arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() so that debugfs list is always complete?
> Right, after this cleanup, I will send arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist()
> patch for arm64 and others. My plan is to move all arch_within_kprobe_blacklist()
> to arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist() so that user can get more precise blacklist
> via debugfs.

Thanks, now it all makes sense!

Reviewed-by: James Morse <>

Could you include a paragraph like that in the cover-letter or commit-message?
The 'fix' in the cover-letter subject had me looking for the bug!



 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-11 19:23    [W:0.105 / U:12.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site