On 04/05, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:22:03AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > I think this expects setjmp/longjmp as below
> >
> > foo() { <- retprobe1
> > setjmp()
> > bar() { <- retprobe2
> > longjmp()
> > }
> > } <- return to trampoline
> >
> > In this case, we need to skip retprobe2's instance.
Yes,
> > My concern is, if we can not find appropriate return instance, what happen?
> > e.g.
> >
> > foo() { <-- retprobe1
> > bar() { # sp is decremented
> > sys_uretprobe() <-- ??
> > }
> > }
> >
> > It seems sys_uretprobe() will handle retprobe1 at that point instead of
> > SIGILL.
>
> yes, and I think it's fine, you get the consumer called in wrong place,
> but it's your fault and kernel won't crash
Agreed.
With or without this patch userpace can also do
foo() { <-- retprobe1
bar() {
jump to xol_area
}
}
handle_trampoline() will handle retprobe1.
> this can be fixed by checking the syscall is called from the trampoline
> and prevent handle_trampoline call if it's not
Yes, but I still do not think this makes a lot of sense. But I won't argue.
And what should sys_uretprobe() do if it is not called from the trampoline?
I'd prefer force_sig(SIGILL) to punish the abuser ;) OK, OK, EINVAL.
I agree very much with Andrii,
sigreturn() exists only to allow the implementation of signal handlers. It should never be
called directly. Details of the arguments (if any) passed to sigreturn() vary depending on
the architecture.
this is how sys_uretprobe() should be treated/documented.
sigreturn() can be "improved" too. Say, it could validate sigcontext->ip
and return -EINVAL if this addr is not valid. But why?
Oleg.
