Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200716151943.2167652-1-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <20200716151943.2167652-4-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200716151943.2167652-4-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:39:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UBMa4pt7Xg2sKXHdjo6tVaQWBQFtT_aoDJ+Xt1HrPD+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] kgdb: Add NOKPROBE labels on the trap handler functions
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 8:20 AM Daniel Thompson
<daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Currently kgdb honours the kprobe blocklist but doesn't place its own
> trap handling code on the list. Add labels to discourage attempting to
> use kgdb to debug itself.
>
> These changes do not make it impossible to provoke recursive trapping
> since they do not cover all the calls that can be made on kgdb's entry
> logic. However going much further whilst we are sharing the kprobe
> blocklist risks reducing the capabilities of kprobe and this would be a
> bad trade off (especially so given kgdb's users are currently conditioned
> to avoid recursive traps).
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  kernel/debug/debug_core.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

I could just be missing something, but...

I understand not adding "NOKPROBE_SYMBOL" to generic kernel functions
that kgdb happens to call, but I'm not quite sure I understand why all
of the kdb / kgdb code itself shouldn't be in the blocklist.  I
certainly don't object to the functions you added to the blocklist, I
guess I'm must trying to understand why it's a bad idea to add more or
how you came up with the list of functions that you did.