On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 9:28 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 03:11:01PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > +static int
> > > +kprobe_multi_resolve_syms(const void *usyms, u32 cnt,
> > > + unsigned long *addrs)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long addr, size;
> > > + const char **syms;
> > > + int err = -ENOMEM;
> > > + unsigned int i;
> > > + char *func;
> > > +
> > > + size = cnt * sizeof(*syms);
> > > + syms = kvzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!syms)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + func = kmalloc(KSYM_NAME_LEN, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!func)
> > > + goto error;
> > > +
> > > + if (copy_from_user(syms, usyms, size)) {
> > > + err = -EFAULT;
> > > + goto error;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> > > + err = strncpy_from_user(func, syms[i], KSYM_NAME_LEN);
> > > + if (err == KSYM_NAME_LEN)
> > > + err = -E2BIG;
> > > + if (err < 0)
> > > + goto error;
> > > +
> > > + err = -EINVAL;
> > > + if (func[0] == '\0')
> > > + goto error;
> >
> > wouldn't empty string be handled by kallsyms_lookup_name?
>
> it would scan and compare all symbols with empty string,
> so it's better to test for it
I don't mind, but it seems like kallsyms_lookup_name() should be made
smarter than that instead, no?
>
> jirka
>
> >
> > > + addr = kallsyms_lookup_name(func);
> > > + if (!addr)
> > > + goto error;
> > > + if (!kallsyms_lookup_size_offset(addr, &size, NULL))
> > > + size = MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE;
> > > + addr = ftrace_location_range(addr, addr + size - 1);
> > > + if (!addr)
> > > + goto error;
> > > + addrs[i] = addr;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + err = 0;
> > > +error:
> > > + kvfree(syms);
> > > + kfree(func);
> > > + return err;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > [...]
