Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:58:41 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, joao@overdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        samitolvanen@google.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        alyssa.milburn@intel.com, mbenes@suse.cz, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions
Message-ID: <202202241657.6C894F8@keescook>
References: <20220224145138.952963315@infradead.org>
 <20220224151322.892372059@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220224151322.892372059@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> With IBT on, sym+0 is no longer the __fentry__ site.
> 
> NOTE: the architecture has a special case and *does* allow placing an
> INT3 breakpoint over ENDBR in which case #BP has precedence over #CP
> and as such we don't need to disallow probing these instructions.
> 
> NOTE: irrespective of the above; there is a complication in that
> direct branches to functions are rewritten to not execute ENDBR, so
> any breakpoint thereon might miss lots of actual function executions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c |   11 +++++++++++
>  kernel/kprobes.c               |   15 ++++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> @@ -1156,3 +1162,8 @@ int arch_trampoline_kprobe(struct kprobe
>  {
>  	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +bool arch_kprobe_on_func_entry(unsigned long offset)
> +{
> +	return offset <= 4*HAS_KERNEL_IBT;
> +}

Let's avoid magic (though obvious right now) literal values. Can the "4"
be changed to a new ENBR_INSTR_SIZE macro or something?

-- 
Kees Cook