lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc/mm: Implement CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA on PPC32
Date
christophe leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:

> Le 19/04/2017 à 16:22, Christophe LEROY a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Le 19/04/2017 à 16:01, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>>> index 32509de6ce4c..4af81fb23653 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>>> @@ -526,7 +526,9 @@ void ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
>>>> */
>>>> void arch_ftrace_update_code(int command)
>>>> {
>>>> + set_kernel_text_rw();
>>>> ftrace_modify_all_code(command);
>>>> + set_kernel_text_ro();
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that's the right place for that.
>>
>> I took arch/arm/ as model. It does the following. Is that wrong ?

It's not wrong, it's just not optimal.

You're setting all text RW to modify one instruction, which is more work
than necessary and also creates a larger attack window.

> Could you provide more details on what you have seen on other arches ? I
> didn't notice anything related in any other arches' ftrace_modify_code()

I was looking at arm64 specifically:

static int ftrace_modify_code(unsigned long pc, u32 old, u32 new,
bool validate)
{
...
if (aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync((void *)pc, new))
return -EPERM;

return 0;
}

int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(void *addr, u32 insn)
{
...
ret = aarch64_insn_write(tp, insn);
if (ret == 0)
flush_icache_range((uintptr_t)tp,
(uintptr_t)tp + AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);

return ret;
}

static int __kprobes __aarch64_insn_write(void *addr, u32 insn)
{
...
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&patch_lock, flags);
waddr = patch_map(addr, FIX_TEXT_POKE0);

ret = probe_kernel_write(waddr, &insn, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);

patch_unmap(FIX_TEXT_POKE0);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&patch_lock, flags);

return ret;
}


So if I'm reading it right they actually create a new RW mapping, patch
that, and then unmap, before flushing the icache.

That's definitely the nicest approach, but is maybe more work than you
signed up for :)


But even if you just shift your logic into ftrace_modify_code(), you
then have the ip, so you can call change_page_attr() on the single page
you're patching rather than all of text.

cheers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-20 08:05    [W:0.047 / U:31.852 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site