DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=DstVpZV/aBFThptG31QTQYzcXOy/7ysn9FwLJAUvV0yZKtEfJtmlInrmk9obe1YXeK
         HgVx5d/cmJf6SIpZKgQk1k1byWeoxeIvtslYh/Bx7bWeAUWqm5FxV+wyUSbQ1yyv16mB
         qiTuyj9Z4kyeR9QI4aPVMZnF5V3gtmoylm5JM=
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:41:12 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE_END
Message-ID: <20081123154112.GD27396@localhost>
References: <20081121154428.GB13014@mailshack.com> <20081121160629.GA24839@elte.hu> <20081123090828.GA31490@mailshack.com> <20081123091532.GA31515@mailshack.com> <20081123132752.GF1178@elte.hu> <20081123135134.GH24818@localhost> <20081123141237.GI24818@localhost> <20081123150418.GA32078@mailshack.com> <20081123151210.GB27396@localhost> <20081123153140.GF3224@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081123153140.GF3224@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3725
Lines: 103

[Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:31:40PM +0100]
| 
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
| 
| > [Alexander van Heukelum - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:04:18PM +0100]
| > | On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:12:37PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > | > [Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:51:34PM +0300]
| > | > | [Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:27:52PM +0100]
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | > Impact: moves some code out of .kprobes.text
| > | > | | > 
| > | > | | > KPROBE_ENTRY switches code generation to .kprobes.text, and KPROBE_END
| > | > | | > uses .popsection to get back to the previous section (.text, normally).
| > | > | | > Also replace ENDPROC by END, for consistency.
| > | > | | > 
| > | > | | > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | applied to tip/x86/irq, thanks Alexander!
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | > One more small change for today. The xen-related functions 
| > | > | | > xen_do_hypervisor_callback and xen_failsafe_callback are put
| > | > | | > in the .kprobes.text even in the current kernel: ignore_sysret
| > | > | | > is enclosed in KPROBE_ENTRY / ENDPROC, instead of KPROBE_ENTRY /
| > | > | | > KPROBE_END, but I guess the situation is harmless.
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | yeah. It narrows no-kprobes protection for that code, but it should 
| > | > | | indeed be fine (and that's the intention as well).
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | Note that this is a reoccuring bug type, and rather long-lived. Can 
| > | > | | you think of any way to get automated nesting protection of both the 
| > | > | | .cfi_startproc/endproc macros and kprobes start/end? A poor man's 
| > | > | | solution would be to grep the number of start and end methods and 
| > | > | | enforce that they are equal.
| > | > | | 
| > | > | | 	Ingo
| > | > | | 
| > | > | 
| > | > | I think we could play with preprocessor and check if ENTRY/END matches.
| > | > | Looking now.
| > | > | 
| > | > | 		- Cyrill -
| > | > 
| > | > Here is what I've done
| > | > 
| > | > 1) Add some macros like:
| > | > 
| > | > 	.macro __set_entry
| > | > 	.set _ENTRY_IN, 1
| > | > 	.endm
| > | > 
| > | > 	.macro __unset_entry
| > | > 	.set _ENTRY_IN, 0
| > | > 	.endm
| > | > 
| > | > 	.macro __check_entry
| > | > 	.ifeq _ENTRY_IN
| > | > 	.error "END should be used"
| > | > 	.abort
| > | > 	.endif
| > | > 	.endm
| > | > 
| > | > So the code
| > | > 
| > | > ENTRY(mcount)
| > | > 	__unset_entry
| > | > 	retq
| > | > 	__check_entry
| > | > END(mcount)
| > | 
| > | Looks like a good approach to me. But I assume the ENTRY cppmacro
| > | will include magic?
| > | 
| > | Greetings,
| > | 	Alexander
| > | 
| > 
| > yes, but now I'm in doubts since we have this definition in common 
| > linkage.h I dont know if such approach would be usable on other 
| > platforms.
| 
| i'd suggest to introduce another entry macro name for that, for the 
| time being. If other architectures want to pick up the method, they 
| can generalize and test it.
| 
| ( but this is assembly magic so i'm doubtful - while the features used 
|   are generic GAS features that should work everywhere, binutils 
|   variants tend to be rather fragile. So lets go with some other name 
|   like X86_ENTRY()/X86_END() or so - or maybe ENTRY_CFI()/END_CFI(). )
| 
| 	Ingo
| 

Indeed! I've just sent some quite raw version. Maybe we should introduce
asmmacro.h as ia64 did?

		- Cyrill -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/