Re: [PATCH 08/15] x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to emulate instructions

[hpa]

On June 7, 2019 11:10:19 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 12:47:08AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> 
>>>> This fits almost all text_poke_bp() users, except
>>>> arch_unoptimize_kprobe() which restores random text, and for that
>site
>>>> we have to build an explicit emulate instruction.
>>> 
>>> Hm, actually it doesn't restores randome text, since the first byte
>>> must always be int3. As the function name means, it just unoptimizes
>>> (jump based optprobe -> int3 based kprobe).
>>> Anyway, that is not an issue. With this patch, optprobe must still
>work.
>> 
>> I thought it basically restored 5 bytes of original text (with no
>> guarantee it is a single instruction, or even a complete
>instruction),
>> with the first byte replaced with INT3.
>> 
>
>I am surely missing some kprobe context, but is it really safe to use
>this mechanism to replace more than one instruction?

I don't see how it could be, except *perhaps* inside an NMI have, because you could have a preempted or interrupted now having an in-memory IP pointing inside the middle of the region you are intending to patch.


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.