lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] powerpc/uprobes: Validation for prefixed instruction
From
Date


On 2/4/21 6:45 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 2021/02/04 04:19PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/21 4:17 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>> Don't allow Uprobe on 2nd word of a prefixed instruction. As per
>>> ISA 3.1, prefixed instruction should not cross 64-byte boundary.
>>> So don't allow Uprobe on such prefixed instruction as well.
>>>
>>> There are two ways probed instruction is changed in mapped pages.
>>> First, when Uprobe is activated, it searches for all the relevant
>>> pages and replace instruction in them. In this case, if we notice
>>> that probe is on the 2nd word of prefixed instruction, error out
>>> directly. Second, when Uprobe is already active and user maps a
>>> relevant page via mmap(), instruction is replaced via mmap() code
>>> path. But because Uprobe is invalid, entire mmap() operation can
>>> not be stopped. In this case just print an error and continue.
>>
>> @mpe,
>>
>> arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can return early if
>> cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31) is not set. But that will
>> miss out a rare scenario of user running binary with prefixed
>> instruction on p10 predecessors. Please let me know if I
>> should add cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31) or not.
>
> The check you are adding is very specific to prefixed instructions, so
> it makes sense to add a cpu feature check for v3.1.
>
> On older processors, those are invalid instructions like any other. The
> instruction emulation infrastructure will refuse to emulate it and the
> instruction will be single stepped.

Sure will add it.

Ravi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 12:25    [W:9.798 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site