Re: [RFC] Have insn decoder functions return success/failure

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:26:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hmm, I meant someone might think it can be used for filtering the
> instruction something like,
> 
> insn_init(insn, buf, buflen, 1);
> ret = insn_get_length(insn);
> if (!ret) {
> 	/* OK, this is safe */
> 	patch_text(buf, trampoline);
> }
> 
> No, we need another validator for such usage.

Well, I think calling insn_get_length() should give you only the
*length* of the insn and nothing else - I mean that is what the function
is called. And I believe current use is wrong.

Examples:

arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c:
                insn_get_length(&insn);

                /*
                 * Another debugging subsystem might insert this breakpoint.
                 * In that case, we can't recover it.
                 */
                if (insn.opcode.bytes[0] == INT3_INSN_OPCODE)

So this has called get_length but it is far from clear that after that
call, the opcode bytes in insn.opcode.bytes are there.

What that should do instead IMO is this:

	insn_get_opcode(&insn);

and *then* the return value can tell you whether the opcode bytes were
parsed properly or not. See what I mean?

That's even documented that way:

/**
 * insn_get_opcode - collect opcode(s)
 * @insn:       &struct insn containing instruction
 *
 * Populates @insn->opcode, updates @insn->next_byte to point past the
 * opcode byte(s), and set @insn->attr (except for groups).


Similarly here:

static enum es_result vc_decode_insn(struct es_em_ctxt *ctxt)

	...

        insn_get_length(&ctxt->insn);

        ret = ctxt->insn.immediate.got ? ES_OK : ES_DECODE_FAILED;

that thing wants to decode the insn but it is looking whether it parsed
an *immediate*?!

I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong - just the naming nomenclature
and the API should be properly defined when you call a function of the
insn decoder, what you are guaranteed to get and what a caller can
assume after that. And then the proper functions be called.

In the kprobes/core.c example above, it does a little further:

	ddr += insn.length;	

which, IMO, it should be either preceeded by a call to insn_get_length()
- yes, this time we want the insn length or, the code should call a
decoding function which gives you *both* length* and opcode bytes.
insn_decode_insn() or whatever. And *that* should be documented in that
function's kernel-doc section. And so on...

Does that make more sense?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette