Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH -rc/-mm] prevent kprobes from catching spuriouspage faults

[Ingo Molnar]

* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -	if (notify_page_fault(regs))
> -		return;
>  	if (unlikely(kmmio_fault(regs, address)))
>  		return;
> 
> @@ -634,6 +632,9 @@ void __kprobes do_page_fault(struct pt_r
>  		if (spurious_fault(address, error_code))
>  			return;
> 
> +		/* kprobes don't want to hook the spurious faults. */
> +		if (notify_page_fault(regs))
> +			return;
>  		/*
>  		 * Don't take the mm semaphore here. If we fixup a prefetch
>  		 * fault we could otherwise deadlock.
> @@ -641,6 +642,9 @@ void __kprobes do_page_fault(struct pt_r
>  		goto bad_area_nosemaphore;
>  	}
> 
> +	/* kprobes don't want to hook the spurious faults. */
> +	if (notify_page_fault(regs))
> +		return;

I dont know - this spreads that callback to two places now. Any
reason why kprobes cannot call spurious_fault(), if there's a
probe active?

Also, moving that would remove the planned cleanup of merging these
two into one call:

 	if (notify_page_fault(regs))
 		return;
  	if (unlikely(kmmio_fault(regs, address)))
  		return;

We should reduce the probing cross section, not increase it,
especially in such a critical codepath as the pagefault handler.

Btw., why cannot kprobes install a dynamic probe to the fault
handler itself? That way the default path would have no such
callbacks and checks at all.

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