Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180083-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 17:42:03 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "olsajiri@gmail.com" <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
	"songliubraving@fb.com" <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	"luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
	"mhiramat@kernel.org" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	"andrii@kernel.org" <andrii@kernel.org>,
	"debug@rivosinc.com" <debug@rivosinc.com>,
	"john.fastabend@gmail.com" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linux-man@vger.kernel.org" <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
	"yhs@fb.com" <yhs@fb.com>,
	"daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
	"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 6/8] x86/shstk: Add return uprobe support
Message-ID: <20240515154202.GE6821@redhat.com>
References: <20240507105321.71524-7-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <a08a955c74682e9dc6eb6d49b91c6968c9b62f75.camel@intel.com>
 <ZjyJsl_u_FmYHrki@krava>
 <a8b7be15e6dbb1e8f2acaee7dae21fec7775194c.camel@intel.com>
 <Zj_enIB_J6pGJ6Nu@krava>
 <20240513185040.416d62bc4a71e79367c1cd9c@kernel.org>
 <c56ae75e9cf0878ac46185a14a18f6ff7e8f891a.camel@intel.com>
 <ZkKE3qT1X_Jirb92@krava>
 <20240515113525.GB6821@redhat.com>
 <0fa9634e9ac0d30d513eefe6099f5d8d354d93c1.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0fa9634e9ac0d30d513eefe6099f5d8d354d93c1.camel@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 05/15, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 13:35 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > I'm ok with not using optimized uretprobe when shadow stack is detected
> > > as enabled and we go with current uretprobe in that case
> >
> > But how can we detect it? Again, suppose userspace does
>
> the rdssp instruction returns the value of the shadow stack pointer. On non-
> shadow stack it is a nop. So you could check if the SSP is non-zero to find if
> shadow stack is enabled.

But again, the ret-probed function can enable it before it returns? And we
need to check if it is enabled on the function entry if we want to avoid
sys_uretprobe() in this case. Although I don't understand why we want to
avoid it.

> This would catch most cases, but I guess there is the
> possibility of it getting enabled in a signal that hit between checking and the
> rest of operation.

Or from signal handler.

> Is this uretprobe stuff signal safe in general?

In what sense?

I forgot everything about this code but I can't recall any problem with signals.

Except it doesn't support sigaltstack() + siglongjmp().

Oleg.