lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kprobes broken since 0d00449c7a28 ("x86: Replace ist_enter() with nmi_enter()")
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:01:03 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:59:43 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:45:48AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > Same things apply to bpf side. We can statically prove safety for
> > > ftrace and kprobe attaching whereas to deal with NMI situation we
> > > have to use run-time checks for recursion prevention, etc.
> >
> > I have no idea what you're saying. You can attach to functions that are
> > called with random locks held, you can create kprobes in some very
> > sensitive places.
> >
> > What can you staticlly prove about that?
>
> I think the main difference is, if you attach a kprobe or ftrace function,
> you can theoretically analyze the location before you do the attachment.
>
> Does, the NMI context mean "in_nmi()" returns true? Because there's cases
> in ftrace callbacks where that is checked (like the stack tracer). And
> having ftrace return true for "in_nmi()" will break a lot of existing
> utilities.

Specifically, kprobe and ftrace callbacks may have this:

if (in_nmi())
return;

raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
[..]
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock, flags);

Which is totally fine to have, but the above only works if "in_nmi()"
returns true only if you are in a real NMI.

The stack tracer code does exactly the above.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-29 22:26    [W:0.156 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site