On 2017/06/22 11:06PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:59:49 +1000 > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > > Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:08:37 +0530 > > > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Currently, we assume that the function pointer we receive in > > >> ppc_function_entry() points to a function descriptor. However, this is > > >> not always the case. In particular, assembly symbols without the right > > >> annotation do not have an associated function descriptor. Some of these > > >> symbols are added to the kprobe blacklist using _ASM_NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(). > > >> When such addresses are subsequently processed through > > >> arch_deref_entry_point() in populate_kprobe_blacklist(), we see the > > >> below errors during bootup: > > >> [ 0.663963] Failed to find blacklist at 7d9b02a648029b6c > > >> [ 0.663970] Failed to find blacklist at a14d03d0394a0001 > > >> [ 0.663972] Failed to find blacklist at 7d5302a6f94d0388 > > >> [ 0.663973] Failed to find blacklist at 48027d11e8610178 > > >> [ 0.663974] Failed to find blacklist at f8010070f8410080 > > >> [ 0.663976] Failed to find blacklist at 386100704801f89d > > >> [ 0.663977] Failed to find blacklist at 7d5302a6f94d00b0 > > >> > > >> Fix this by checking if the address in the function descriptor is > > >> actually a valid kernel address. In the case of assembly symbols, this > > >> will almost always fail as this ends up being powerpc instructions. In > > >> that case, return pointer to the address we received, rather than the > > >> dereferenced value. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > >> --- > > >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h | 10 +++++++++- > > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h > > >> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h > > >> index abef812de7f8..ec54050be585 100644 > > >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h > > >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h > > >> @@ -83,8 +83,16 @@ static inline unsigned long ppc_function_entry(void > > >> *func) > > >> * 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. > > >> + * > > >> + * However, we may have received a pointer to an assembly symbol > > >> + * that may not be a function descriptor. Validate that the > > >> entry > > >> + * points to a valid kernel address and if not, return the > > >> pointer > > >> + * we received as is. > > >> */ > > >> - return ((func_descr_t *)func)->entry; > > >> + if (kernel_text_address(((func_descr_t *)func)->entry)) > > >> + return ((func_descr_t *)func)->entry; > > >> + else > > >> + return (unsigned long)func; > > > > > > What if "func" is a text section label (bare asm function)? > > > Won't func->entry load the random instruction located there > > > and compare it with a kernel address? > > > > Yes, that's the problem.
Yes, we were currently returning those instructions as the function entry address. > > > > > I don't know too much about the v1 ABI, but should we check for > > > func belonging in the .opd section first and base the check on > > > that? Alternatively I if "func" is in the kernel text address, > > > we can recognize it's not in the .opd section... right? > > > > That sounds like a more robust solution. But I suspect it won't work for > > modules. > > kernel_text_address() seems to check for module text as well, so it > might work I think? Yes, I think that's a very nice idea! I'll check and confirm that it does what it's supposed to. Thanks for the review, - Naveen
