From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757539AbaFSH0S (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 03:26:18 -0400 Received: from mail4.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.5]:36627 "EHLO mail4.hitachi.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755097AbaFSH0Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 03:26:16 -0400 Message-ID: <53A2908E.2000806@hitachi.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:26:06 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu Organization: Hitachi, Ltd., Japan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Suzuki K. Poulose" Cc: Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Tony Luck , Paul Mackerras , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, sparse@chrisli.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, Ingo Molnar , Fenghua Yu , Arnd Bergmann , Rusty Russell , Chris Wright , yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com, akataria@vmware.com, Tony Luck , Kevin Hao , Linus Torvalds , rdunlap@infradead.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , dl9pf@gmx.de, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Re: [RFT PATCH -next v3] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Fix "Failed to find blacklist" error on ia64 and ppc64 References: <5387F150.5000307@hitachi.com> <20140530031838.17427.75896.stgit@ltc230.yrl.intra.hitachi.co.jp> <539161D6.7020508@hitachi.com> <1403078179.32307.7.camel@concordia> <53A15201.7060404@hitachi.com> <1403141433.4768.1.camel@concordia> <53A26C99.6060000@hitachi.com> <53A285D0.1030106@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <53A285D0.1030106@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2014/06/19 15:40), Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: > On 06/19/2014 10:22 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/06/19 10:30), Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 17:46 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>> (2014/06/18 16:56), Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 15:38 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>>>> Ping? >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess this should go to 3.16 branch, shouldn't it? >>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> index bfb6ded..8b89d65 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,17 @@ typedef struct { >>>>>>> unsigned long env; >>>>>>> } func_descr_t; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && (!defined(_CALL_ELF) || _CALL_ELF == 1) >>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>> + * On PPC64 ABIv1 the function pointer actually points to the >>>>>>> + * function's descriptor. The first entry in the descriptor is the >>>>>>> + * address of the function text. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> +#define function_entry(fn) (((func_descr_t *)(fn))->entry) >>>>>>> +#else >>>>>>> +#define function_entry(fn) ((unsigned long)(fn)) >>>>>>> +#endif >>>>> >>>>> We already have ppc_function_entry(), can't you use that? >>>> >>>> I'd like to ask you whether the address which ppc_function_entry() returns on >>>> PPC ABIv2 is really same address in kallsyms or not. >>>> As you can see, kprobes uses function_entry() to get the actual entry address >>>> where kallsyms knows. I have not much information about that, but it seems that >>>> the "global entry point" is the address which kallsyms knows, isn't it? >>> >>> OK. I'm not sure off the top of my head which address kallsyms knows about, but >>> yes it's likely that it is the global entry point. >>> >>> I recently sent a patch to add ppc_global_function_entry(), because we need it >>> in the ftrace code. Once that is merged you could use that. >> >> Yeah, I could use that. But since this is used in arch-independent code (e.g. IA64 >> needs similar macro), I think we'd better define function_entry() in asm/types.h for >> general use (for kallsyms), and rename ppc_function_entry to local_function_entry() >> in asm/code-patching.h. >> >> >>> How do you hit the original problem, you don't actually specify in your commit >>> message? Something with kprobes obviously, but what exactly? I'll try and >>> reproduce it here. >> >> Ah, those messages should be shown in dmesg when booting if it doesn't work, >> because the messages are printed by initialization process of kprobe blacklist. >> So, reproducing it is just enabling CONFIG_KPROBES and boot it. > Well, we don't get those messages on Power, since the kallsyms has the > entries for ".function_name". The correct way to verify is, either : Hmm, that seems another issue on powerpc. Is that expected(and designed) behavior? And if so, how I can verify when initializing blacklist? (should I better use kallsyms_lookup() and kallsyms_lookup_name() for verification?) Thank you, > > 1) Dump the black_list via xmon ( see : > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/29/893 ) and verify the entries. > > or > > 2) Issue a kprobe on a black listed entry and hit a success,(which we > will, since we don't check the actual function address). > > Thanks > Suzuki > > >> >> Thank you, >> -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail4.hitachi.co.jp (mail4.hitachi.co.jp [133.145.228.5]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512A61A0355 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:26:15 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <53A2908E.2000806@hitachi.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:26:06 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Suzuki K. Poulose" Subject: Re: Re: [RFT PATCH -next v3] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Fix "Failed to find blacklist" error on ia64 and ppc64 References: <5387F150.5000307@hitachi.com> <20140530031838.17427.75896.stgit@ltc230.yrl.intra.hitachi.co.jp> <539161D6.7020508@hitachi.com> <1403078179.32307.7.camel@concordia> <53A15201.7060404@hitachi.com> <1403141433.4768.1.camel@concordia> <53A26C99.6060000@hitachi.com> <53A285D0.1030106@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <53A285D0.1030106@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, sparse@chrisli.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Paul Mackerras , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, Ingo Molnar , Fenghua Yu , Arnd Bergmann , Rusty Russell , Chris Wright , yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com, akataria@vmware.com, Tony Luck , Kevin Hao , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, Tony Luck , dl9pf@gmx.de, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "David S. Miller" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , (2014/06/19 15:40), Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: > On 06/19/2014 10:22 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/06/19 10:30), Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 17:46 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>> (2014/06/18 16:56), Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 15:38 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>>>> Ping? >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess this should go to 3.16 branch, shouldn't it? >>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> index bfb6ded..8b89d65 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,17 @@ typedef struct { >>>>>>> unsigned long env; >>>>>>> } func_descr_t; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && (!defined(_CALL_ELF) || _CALL_ELF == 1) >>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>> + * On PPC64 ABIv1 the function pointer actually points to the >>>>>>> + * function's descriptor. The first entry in the descriptor is the >>>>>>> + * address of the function text. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> +#define function_entry(fn) (((func_descr_t *)(fn))->entry) >>>>>>> +#else >>>>>>> +#define function_entry(fn) ((unsigned long)(fn)) >>>>>>> +#endif >>>>> >>>>> We already have ppc_function_entry(), can't you use that? >>>> >>>> I'd like to ask you whether the address which ppc_function_entry() returns on >>>> PPC ABIv2 is really same address in kallsyms or not. >>>> As you can see, kprobes uses function_entry() to get the actual entry address >>>> where kallsyms knows. I have not much information about that, but it seems that >>>> the "global entry point" is the address which kallsyms knows, isn't it? >>> >>> OK. I'm not sure off the top of my head which address kallsyms knows about, but >>> yes it's likely that it is the global entry point. >>> >>> I recently sent a patch to add ppc_global_function_entry(), because we need it >>> in the ftrace code. Once that is merged you could use that. >> >> Yeah, I could use that. But since this is used in arch-independent code (e.g. IA64 >> needs similar macro), I think we'd better define function_entry() in asm/types.h for >> general use (for kallsyms), and rename ppc_function_entry to local_function_entry() >> in asm/code-patching.h. >> >> >>> How do you hit the original problem, you don't actually specify in your commit >>> message? Something with kprobes obviously, but what exactly? I'll try and >>> reproduce it here. >> >> Ah, those messages should be shown in dmesg when booting if it doesn't work, >> because the messages are printed by initialization process of kprobe blacklist. >> So, reproducing it is just enabling CONFIG_KPROBES and boot it. > Well, we don't get those messages on Power, since the kallsyms has the > entries for ".function_name". The correct way to verify is, either : Hmm, that seems another issue on powerpc. Is that expected(and designed) behavior? And if so, how I can verify when initializing blacklist? (should I better use kallsyms_lookup() and kallsyms_lookup_name() for verification?) Thank you, > > 1) Dump the black_list via xmon ( see : > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/29/893 ) and verify the entries. > > or > > 2) Issue a kprobe on a black listed entry and hit a success,(which we > will, since we don't check the actual function address). > > Thanks > Suzuki > > >> >> Thank you, >> -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Masami Hiramatsu Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:26:06 +0000 Subject: Re: Re: [RFT PATCH -next v3] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Fix "Failed to find blacklist" error on ia64 and ppc6 Message-Id: <53A2908E.2000806@hitachi.com> List-Id: References: <5387F150.5000307@hitachi.com> <20140530031838.17427.75896.stgit@ltc230.yrl.intra.hitachi.co.jp> <539161D6.7020508@hitachi.com> <1403078179.32307.7.camel@concordia> <53A15201.7060404@hitachi.com> <1403141433.4768.1.camel@concordia> <53A26C99.6060000@hitachi.com> <53A285D0.1030106@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <53A285D0.1030106@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Suzuki K. Poulose" Cc: Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Tony Luck , Paul Mackerras , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, sparse@chrisli.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, Ingo Molnar , Fenghua Yu , Arnd Bergmann , Rusty Russell , Chris Wright , yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com, akataria@vmware.com, Tony Luck , Kevin Hao , Linus Torvalds , rdunlap@infradead.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , dl9pf@gmx.de, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" (2014/06/19 15:40), Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: > On 06/19/2014 10:22 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/06/19 10:30), Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 17:46 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>> (2014/06/18 16:56), Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 15:38 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>>>> Ping? >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess this should go to 3.16 branch, shouldn't it? >>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> index bfb6ded..8b89d65 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h >>>>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,17 @@ typedef struct { >>>>>>> unsigned long env; >>>>>>> } func_descr_t; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && (!defined(_CALL_ELF) || _CALL_ELF = 1) >>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>> + * On PPC64 ABIv1 the function pointer actually points to the >>>>>>> + * function's descriptor. The first entry in the descriptor is the >>>>>>> + * address of the function text. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> +#define function_entry(fn) (((func_descr_t *)(fn))->entry) >>>>>>> +#else >>>>>>> +#define function_entry(fn) ((unsigned long)(fn)) >>>>>>> +#endif >>>>> >>>>> We already have ppc_function_entry(), can't you use that? >>>> >>>> I'd like to ask you whether the address which ppc_function_entry() returns on >>>> PPC ABIv2 is really same address in kallsyms or not. >>>> As you can see, kprobes uses function_entry() to get the actual entry address >>>> where kallsyms knows. I have not much information about that, but it seems that >>>> the "global entry point" is the address which kallsyms knows, isn't it? >>> >>> OK. I'm not sure off the top of my head which address kallsyms knows about, but >>> yes it's likely that it is the global entry point. >>> >>> I recently sent a patch to add ppc_global_function_entry(), because we need it >>> in the ftrace code. Once that is merged you could use that. >> >> Yeah, I could use that. But since this is used in arch-independent code (e.g. IA64 >> needs similar macro), I think we'd better define function_entry() in asm/types.h for >> general use (for kallsyms), and rename ppc_function_entry to local_function_entry() >> in asm/code-patching.h. >> >> >>> How do you hit the original problem, you don't actually specify in your commit >>> message? Something with kprobes obviously, but what exactly? I'll try and >>> reproduce it here. >> >> Ah, those messages should be shown in dmesg when booting if it doesn't work, >> because the messages are printed by initialization process of kprobe blacklist. >> So, reproducing it is just enabling CONFIG_KPROBES and boot it. > Well, we don't get those messages on Power, since the kallsyms has the > entries for ".function_name". The correct way to verify is, either : Hmm, that seems another issue on powerpc. Is that expected(and designed) behavior? And if so, how I can verify when initializing blacklist? (should I better use kallsyms_lookup() and kallsyms_lookup_name() for verification?) Thank you, > > 1) Dump the black_list via xmon ( see : > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/29/893 ) and verify the entries. > > or > > 2) Issue a kprobe on a black listed entry and hit a success,(which we > will, since we don't check the actual function address). > > Thanks > Suzuki > > >> >> Thank you, >> -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com