Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] uprobes/x86: emulate push insns for uprobe on x86
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
CC:     <mingo@kernel.org>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@fb.com>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
References: <20171110172546.3185266-1-yhs@fb.com>
 <20171113125956.GA11516@redhat.com>
 <6fdd9773-a0d0-7598-35d4-959bb3701d1b@fb.com>
 <20171114153424.GA17667@redhat.com>
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Message-ID: <cd34cc94-94ff-dd79-5f0e-c6b1bfb99126@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:22:46 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171114153424.GA17667@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2017 22:22:49.5161 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2c60e15a-052a-4417-74e7-08d52bae3dd8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR15MB1834
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-11-14_12:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 11/14/17 7:34 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/13, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/17 4:59 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>> +		switch (opc1) {
>>>> +		case 0x50:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r8);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x51:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r9);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x52:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r10);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x53:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r11);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x54:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r12);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x55:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r13);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x56:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r14);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		case 0x57:
>>>> +			reg_offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r15);
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +#else
>>>> +		return -ENOSYS;
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> OK, but shouldn't we also return ENOSYS if CONFIG_X86_64=y but the probed task is 32bit?
>>
>> Just tested with a 32bit app on x86 box and segfaults.
> 
> Hmm. How did you verify this?

On a x86_32 box, I compiled the test case with static libraries 
(including static libc). And I then run this binary on x86_64 with
uprobe enabled. You will need to install glibc-static package to make it 
work.

> 
> Your v3 doesn't look right and it seems you misunderstood me...
> 
>> Yes, we would need to
>> return ENOSYS if the app is 32bit on 64bit system.
> 
> Only if insn->length == 2. "push bp" and other valid 32bit push'es should be
> emulated correctly or your patch is wrong. Confused... >
>>> Or in this case uprobe_init_insn(x86_64 => false) should fail and push_setup_xol_ops()
>>> won't be called?
> 
> So it doesn't fail?
> 
> Oleg.
> 

From 1584083318380377235@xxx Tue Nov 14 22:46:15 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583700940287669077
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread