LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Abhishek Sagar" <>
Cc: LKML <>,, "Masami Hiramatsu" <>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] x86: Catch stray non-kprobe breakpoints
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:10:58 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 1/29/08, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <> wrote:
> > Non kprobe breakpoints in the kernel might lie inside the .kprobes.text section. Such breakpoints can easily be identified by in_kprobes_functions and can be caught early. These are problematic and a warning should be emitted to discourage them (in any rare case, if they actually occur).
> Why? As Masami indicated in an earlier reply, the annotation is to
> prevent *only* kprobes.

May be I'm completely off the mark here, but shouldn't a small subset
of this section simply be 'breakpoint-free' rather than 'kprobe-free'?
Placing a breakpoint on kprobe_handler (say) can loop into a recursive
trap without allowing the debugger's notifier chain to be invoked. I'm
assuming that non-kprobe exception notifiers may (or even should) run
after kprobe's notifier callback (kprobe_exceptions_notify).

> > For this, a check can route the trap handling of such breakpoints away from kprobe_handler (which ends up calling even more functions marked as __kprobes) from inside kprobe_exceptions_notify.
> Well.. we pass on control of a !kprobe breakpoint to the kernel. This is
> exactly what permits debuggers like xmon to work fine now.

This will still happen. It doesn't stop non-kprobe breakpoints from
being handled, wherever they may be.

> I don't see any harm in such breakpoints being handled autonomously
> without any sort of kprobe influence.

Here's what seems to be happening currently:

int3 (non-kprobe) -> do_int3 ->kprobe_exceptions_notify ->
kprobe_handler (passes the buck to the kernel) -> non-krpobe/debugger
exception handler.

Here's what the patch will do:

int3 (non-kprobe) -> do_int3 ->kprobe_exceptions_notify ->
WARN_ON/kprobe_handler -> non-kprobe/debugger exception handler.

The WARN_ON (and not a BUG_ON) will be hit iff:
(in_kprobes_functions(addr) && !is_jprobe_bkpt(addr))

> Ananth

I hope I've understood the point you were making, or at least came close :-).


  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-29 10:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-27  9:08 Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29  6:02 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2008-01-29 10:40   ` Abhishek Sagar [this message]
2008-01-29 13:18     ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2008-01-29 17:24       ` Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29 15:13     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2008-01-29 18:08       ` Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29 19:29         ` Masami Hiramatsu
2008-01-30  4:07           ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] x86: Catch stray non-kprobe breakpoints' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).