From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82936C169C4 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553AB21917 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727557AbfBHJPX (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 04:15:23 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46656 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726934AbfBHJPX (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 04:15:23 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C8380D; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:15:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from fuggles.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D01E3F557; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:15:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:15:19 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: James Morse , Catalin Marinas , Pratyush Anand , "David A . Long" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: kprobes: Use arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist() Message-ID: <20190208091519.GB6972@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> References: <154753341900.31541.8135985235882849464.stgit@devbox> <154753353370.31541.14485875717131836689.stgit@devbox> <7f840cc8-4e62-e1d7-9035-4361204fc134@arm.com> <20190121222558.1ef0abc89a704597d6c3de7f@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190121222558.1ef0abc89a704597d6c3de7f@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+86 (6f28e57d73f2) () Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Masami, On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:25:58PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:20:07 +0000 > James Morse wrote: > > On 15/01/2019 06:25, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Use arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist() instead of > > > arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() so that we can see the full > > > blacklisted symbols under the debugfs. > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c > > > index b9e9758b6534..6c066c34c8a4 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c > > > @@ -465,26 +465,30 @@ kprobe_breakpoint_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr) > > > return DBG_HOOK_HANDLED; > > > } > > > > > > -bool arch_within_kprobe_blacklist(unsigned long addr) > > > +int __init arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(void) > > > { > > > - if ((addr >= (unsigned long)__kprobes_text_start && > > > - addr < (unsigned long)__kprobes_text_end) || > > > - (addr >= (unsigned long)__entry_text_start && > > > - addr < (unsigned long)__entry_text_end) || > > > - (addr >= (unsigned long)__idmap_text_start && > > > - addr < (unsigned long)__idmap_text_end) || > > > > > - in_exception_text(addr)) > > > > You added this one in the previous patch, but it disappears here. > > Yes, it is easy to explain how we transcribe from > arch_within_kprobe_blacklist() to arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(). > > > > > > > > - return true; > > > - > > > - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > > > - if ((addr >= (unsigned long)__hyp_text_start && > > > - addr < (unsigned long)__hyp_text_end) || > > > - (addr >= (unsigned long)__hyp_idmap_text_start && > > > - addr < (unsigned long)__hyp_idmap_text_end)) > > > - return true; > > > - } > > > - > > > - return false; > > > + int ret; > > > > > > > + ret = kprobe_add_area_blacklist((unsigned long)__kprobes_text_start, > > > + (unsigned long)__kprobes_text_end); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > > Now that we have arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(), does the arch-code need to > > blacklist the kprobes section itself? > > Ah, good catch! No, we don't need it here. Sorry I worked on older patch. > I'll update it. Did you send a new version of this series? I can't seem to spot it in my inbox. Cheers, Will