x86/kprobes: Fix crash when probing CS CALL instructionsgrafted

When using eBPF to probe CS CALL instructions within a function,
a crash can be triggered.

The eBPF tool probes offset 257 of the __hrtimer_run_queues()
function:

<__hrtimer_run_queues+249>:  nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
<__hrtimer_run_queues+254>:  mov    %r14,%rdi
<__hrtimer_run_queues+257>:  cs call <__x86_indirect_thunk_r12>
<__hrtimer_run_queues+263>:  mov    %eax,%r12d
<__hrtimer_run_queues+266>:  xchg   %ax,%ax
<__hrtimer_run_queues+268>:  mov    %r13,%rdi

Which triggers this crash:

  BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 00000000000f41c9
  #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
  #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
  PGD 0 P4D 0
  Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP NOPTI
  CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Kdump: loaded Tainted: P
  RIP: 0010:__hrtimer_run_queues+0x106/0x230

Note that __hrtimer_run_queues+0x106 is __hrtimer_run_queues+262, which is
at the 6th byte of the above CS CALL instruction. Since the CS CALL
instruction occupies 6 bytes, the exception occurred in the middle of that
call instruction.

The root cause is that when using eBPF tools to probe in the middle of a
function, a kprobe with INT3 is used as the underlying implementation.

During single-step emulation of the original CALL instruction,
int3_emulate_call() assumes that the probed CALL instruction is 5 bytes
long. However, the actual CS-prefixed CALL instruction occupies 6 bytes,
so it constructs an incorrect exception return address. When the CPU
returns from the kprobe handler, the next instruction to be executed is at
the address of the last byte of that CS CALL instruction. Coincidentally,
starting from that address, the CPU fetches and decodes a completely
different instruction, which ultimately triggers a kernel crash.

Fix the issue by using the actual instruction length obtained from
the instruction decoder when constructing the exception return
address, rather than relying on the hardcoded CALL_INSN_SIZE macro.

[ mingo: Refined the changelog ]

Fixes: 6256e668b7af ("x86/kprobes: Use int3 instead of debug trap for single-step")
Suggested-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jinke Han <jinkehan@didiglobal.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260908073742.GA10517@didi-ThinkCentre-M920t-N000

1 files changed, 144 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/preempt-locking.rst b/Documentation/locking/preempt-locking.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..dce336134
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/locking/preempt-locking.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+===========================================================================
+Proper Locking Under a Preemptible Kernel: Keeping Kernel Code Preempt-Safe
+===========================================================================
+
+:Author: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
+
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+
+A preemptible kernel creates new locking issues.  The issues are the same as
+those under SMP: concurrency and reentrancy.  Thankfully, the Linux preemptible
+kernel model leverages existing SMP locking mechanisms.  Thus, the kernel
+requires explicit additional locking for very few additional situations.
+
+This document is for all kernel hackers.  Developing code in the kernel
+requires protecting these situations.
+ 
+
+RULE #1: Per-CPU data structures need explicit protection
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+
+Two similar problems arise. An example code snippet::
+
+	struct this_needs_locking tux[NR_CPUS];
+	tux[smp_processor_id()] = some_value;
+	/* task is preempted here... */
+	something = tux[smp_processor_id()];
+
+First, since the data is per-CPU, it may not have explicit SMP locking, but
+require it otherwise.  Second, when a preempted task is finally rescheduled,
+the previous value of smp_processor_id may not equal the current.  You must
+protect these situations by disabling preemption around them.
+
+You can also use put_cpu() and get_cpu(), which will disable preemption.
+
+
+RULE #2: CPU state must be protected.
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+
+Under preemption, the state of the CPU must be protected.  This is arch-
+dependent, but includes CPU structures and state not preserved over a context
+switch.  For example, on x86, entering and exiting FPU mode is now a critical
+section that must occur while preemption is disabled.  Think what would happen
+if the kernel is executing a floating-point instruction and is then preempted.
+Remember, the kernel does not save FPU state except for user tasks.  Therefore,
+upon preemption, the FPU registers will be sold to the lowest bidder.  Thus,
+preemption must be disabled around such regions.
+
+Note, some FPU functions are already explicitly preempt safe.  For example,
+kernel_fpu_begin and kernel_fpu_end will disable and enable preemption.
+
+
+RULE #3: Lock acquire and release must be performed by same task
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+
+A lock acquired in one task must be released by the same task.  This
+means you can't do oddball things like acquire a lock and go off to
+play while another task releases it.  If you want to do something
+like this, acquire and release the task in the same code path and
+have the caller wait on an event by the other task.
+
+
+Solution
+========
+
+
+Data protection under preemption is achieved by disabling preemption for the
+duration of the critical region.
+
+::
+
+  preempt_enable()		decrement the preempt counter
+  preempt_disable()		increment the preempt counter
+  preempt_enable_no_resched()	decrement, but do not immediately preempt
+  preempt_check_resched()	if needed, reschedule
+  preempt_count()		return the preempt counter
+
+The functions are nestable.  In other words, you can call preempt_disable
+n-times in a code path, and preemption will not be reenabled until the n-th
+call to preempt_enable.  The preempt statements define to nothing if
+preemption is not enabled.
+
+Note that you do not need to explicitly prevent preemption if you are holding
+any locks or interrupts are disabled, since preemption is implicitly disabled
+in those cases.
+
+But keep in mind that 'irqs disabled' is a fundamentally unsafe way of
+disabling preemption - any cond_resched() or cond_resched_lock() might trigger
+a reschedule if the preempt count is 0. A simple printk() might trigger a
+reschedule. So use this implicit preemption-disabling property only if you
+know that the affected codepath does not do any of this. Best policy is to use
+this only for small, atomic code that you wrote and which calls no complex
+functions.
+
+Example::
+
+	cpucache_t *cc; /* this is per-CPU */
+	preempt_disable();
+	cc = cc_data(searchp);
+	if (cc && cc->avail) {
+		__free_block(searchp, cc_entry(cc), cc->avail);
+		cc->avail = 0;
+	}
+	preempt_enable();
+	return 0;
+
+Notice how the preemption statements must encompass every reference of the
+critical variables.  Another example::
+
+	int buf[NR_CPUS];
+	set_cpu_val(buf);
+	if (buf[smp_processor_id()] == -1) printf(KERN_INFO "wee!\n");
+	spin_lock(&buf_lock);
+	/* ... */
+
+This code is not preempt-safe, but see how easily we can fix it by simply
+moving the spin_lock up two lines.
+
+
+Preventing preemption using interrupt disabling
+===============================================
+
+
+It is possible to prevent a preemption event using local_irq_disable and
+local_irq_save.  Note, when doing so, you must be very careful to not cause
+an event that would set need_resched and result in a preemption check.  When
+in doubt, rely on locking or explicit preemption disabling.
+
+Note in 2.5 interrupt disabling is now only per-CPU (e.g. local).
+
+An additional concern is proper usage of local_irq_disable and local_irq_save.
+These may be used to protect from preemption, however, on exit, if preemption
+may be enabled, a test to see if preemption is required should be done.  If
+these are called from the spin_lock and read/write lock macros, the right thing
+is done.  They may also be called within a spin-lock protected region, however,
+if they are ever called outside of this context, a test for preemption should
+be made. Do note that calls from interrupt context or bottom half/ tasklets
+are also protected by preemption locks and so may use the versions which do
+not check preemption.