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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/uprobes: Validation for prefixed instruction
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     mpe@ellerman.id.au, oleg@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        paulus@samba.org, jniethe5@gmail.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com,
        sandipan@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20210204104703.273429-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <79b0bed7-8b98-d58d-dc47-644195bbc095@linux.ibm.com>
 <20210204131534.GL210@DESKTOP-TDPLP67.localdomain>
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <abf9c2d3-e26a-e7ac-3e73-19c46c4e81c8@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:38:08 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210204131534.GL210@DESKTOP-TDPLP67.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


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