Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] ARM64: Add kernel probes(Kprobes) support

[William Cohen]

On 12/01/2014 04:37 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/11/29 1:01), Steve Capper wrote:
>> On 27 November 2014 at 06:07, Masami Hiramatsu
>> <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> (2014/11/27 3:59), Steve Capper wrote:
>>>> The crash is extremely easy to reproduce.
>>>>
>>>> I've not observed any missed events on a kprobe on an arm64 system
>>>> that's still alive.
>>>> My (limited!) understanding is that this suggests there could be a
>>>> problem with how missed events from a recursive call to memcpy are
>>>> being handled.
>>>
>>> I think so too. BTW, could you bisect that? :)
>>>
>>
>> I can't bisect, but the following functions look suspicious to me
>> (again I'm new to kprobes...):
>> kprobes_save_local_irqflag
>> kprobes_restore_local_irqflag
>>
>> I think these are breaking somehow when nested (i.e. from a recursive probe).
> 
> Agreed. On x86, prev_kprobe has old_flags and saved_flags, this
> at least must have saved_irqflag and save/restore it in
> save/restore_previous_kprobe().
> 
> What about adding this?
> 
>  struct prev_kprobe {
>  	struct kprobe *kp;
>  	unsigned int status;
> +	unsigned long saved_irqflag;
>  };
> 
> and
> 
>  static void __kprobes save_previous_kprobe(struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb)
>  {
>  	kcb->prev_kprobe.kp = kprobe_running();
>  	kcb->prev_kprobe.status = kcb->kprobe_status;
> +	kcb->prev_kprobe.saved_irqflag = kcb->saved_irqflag;
>  }
> 
>  static void __kprobes restore_previous_kprobe(struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb)
>  {
>  	__this_cpu_write(current_kprobe, kcb->prev_kprobe.kp);
>  	kcb->kprobe_status = kcb->prev_kprobe.status;
> +	kcb->saved_irqflag = kcb->prev_kprobe.saved_irqflag;
>  }
> 
> 

I have noticed with the aarch64 kprobe patches and recent kernel I can get the machine to end up getting stuck and printing out endless strings of

[187694.855843] Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1
[187694.861385] Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1
[187694.866926] Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1
[187694.872467] Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1
[187694.878009] Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1
[187694.883550] Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1

I can reproduce this pretty easily on my machine with functioncallcount.stp from https://sourceware.org/systemtap/examples/profiling/functioncallcount.stp and the following steps:

# stap -p4 -k -m mm_probes -w functioncallcount.stp "*@mm/*.c" -c "sleep 1"
# staprun mm_probes.ko -c "sleep 1"

-Will

> 
> 
>> That would explain why the state of play of the interrupts is in an
>> unexpected state in the crash I reported:
>> "The point of failure in the panic was:
>> fs/buffer.c:1257
>>
>> static inline void check_irqs_on(void)
>> {
>> #ifdef irqs_disabled
>>         BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
>> #endif
>> }
>> "
>>
>> This is all new to me so I'm still at the head-scratching stage.
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
>>
>> David,
>> Does the above make sense to you? Have you managed to reproduce the crash I get?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Steve
>> --
>> 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/
>>
> 
> 

--
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/