On Sat, 05 May 2018 13:16:04 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 May 2018 12:06:42 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 5 May 2018 00:48:28 +0900
> >> Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > > Also, when looking at the kprobe code, I was looking at this 
> >> > > function:
> >> > >   
> >> > > > /* Ftrace callback handler for kprobes -- called under preepmt 
> >> > > > disabed */
> >> > > > void kprobe_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> >> > > >                         struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> > > > {
> >> > > >      struct kprobe *p;
> >> > > >      struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb;
> >> > > > 
> >> > > >      /* Preempt is disabled by ftrace */
> >> > > >      p = get_kprobe((kprobe_opcode_t *)ip);
> >> > > >      if (unlikely(!p) || kprobe_disabled(p))
> >> > > >              return;
> >> > > > 
> >> > > >      kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
> >> > > >      if (kprobe_running()) {
> >> > > >              kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
> >> > > >      } else {
> >> > > >              unsigned long orig_ip = regs->ip;
> >> > > >              /* Kprobe handler expects regs->ip = ip + 1 as 
> >> > > > breakpoint hit */
> >> > > >              regs->ip = ip + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t);
> >> > > > 
> >> > > >              /* To emulate trap based kprobes, preempt_disable here 
> >> > > > */
> >> > > >              preempt_disable();
> >> > > >              __this_cpu_write(current_kprobe, p);
> >> > > >              kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE;
> >> > > >              if (!p->pre_handler || !p->pre_handler(p, regs)) {
> >> > > >                      __skip_singlestep(p, regs, kcb, orig_ip);
> >> > > >                      preempt_enable_no_resched();  
> >> > > 
> >> > > This preemption disabling and enabling looks rather strange. Looking at
> >> > > git blame, it appears this was added for jprobes. Can we remove it now
> >> > > that jprobes is going away?  
> >> > 
> >> > No, that is not for jprobes but for compatibility with kprobe's user
> >> > handler. Since this transformation is done silently, user can not
> >> > change their handler for ftrace case. So we need to keep this condition
> >> > same as original kprobes.
> >> > 
> >> > And anyway, for using smp_processor_id() for accessing per-cpu,
> >> > we should disable preemption, correct?
> >> 
> >> But as stated at the start of the function:
> >> 
> >>  /* Preempt is disabled by ftrace */
> > 
> > Ah, yes. So this is only for the jprobes.
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The reason I ask, is that we have for this function:
> >> 
> >>            /* To emulate trap based kprobes, preempt_disable here */
> >>            preempt_disable();
> >>            __this_cpu_write(current_kprobe, p);
> >>            kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE;
> >>            if (!p->pre_handler || !p->pre_handler(p, regs)) {
> >>                    __skip_singlestep(p, regs, kcb, orig_ip);
> >>                    preempt_enable_no_resched();
> >>            }
> >> 
> >> And in arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c we have:
> >> 
> >>    preempt_disable();
> >> 
> >>    kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
> >>    p = get_kprobe(addr);
> >> 
> >>    if (p) {
> >>            if (kprobe_running()) {
> >>                    if (reenter_kprobe(p, regs, kcb))
> >>                            return 1;
> >>            } else {
> >>                    set_current_kprobe(p, regs, kcb);
> >>                    kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE;
> >> 
> >>                    /*
> >>                     * If we have no pre-handler or it returned 0, we
> >>                     * continue with normal processing.  If we have a
> >>                     * pre-handler and it returned non-zero, it prepped
> >>                     * for calling the break_handler below on re-entry
> >>                     * for jprobe processing, so get out doing nothing
> >>                     * more here.
> >>                     */
> >>                    if (!p->pre_handler || !p->pre_handler(p, regs))
> >>                            setup_singlestep(p, regs, kcb, 0);
> >>                    return 1;
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Which is why I thought it was for jprobes. I'm a bit confused about
> >> where preemption is enabled again.
> > 
> > You're right. So I would like to remove it with x86 jprobe support
> > code to avoid inconsistency.
> 
> I didn't understand that. Which code are you planning to remove? Can you 
> please elaborate? I thought we still need to disable preemption in the 
> ftrace handler.

Yes, kprobe_ftrace_handler itself must be run under preempt disabled
because it depends on a per-cpu variable. What I will remove is the
redundant preempt disable/enable_noresched (unbalanced) pair in the
kprobe_ftrace_handler, and jprobe x86 ports which is no more used.

Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org>

Reply via email to