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, 231 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst b/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c700dde92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+====================
+Runtime Verification
+====================
+
+Runtime Verification (RV) is a lightweight (yet rigorous) method that
+complements classical exhaustive verification techniques (such as *model
+checking* and *theorem proving*) with a more practical approach for complex
+systems.
+
+Instead of relying on a fine-grained model of a system (e.g., a
+re-implementation at instruction level), RV works by analyzing the trace of the
+system's actual execution, comparing it against a formal specification of
+the system behavior.
+
+The main advantage is that RV can give precise information on the runtime
+behavior of the monitored system, without the pitfalls of developing models
+that require a re-implementation of the entire system in a modeling language.
+Moreover, given an efficient monitoring method, it is possible to execute an
+*online* verification of a system, enabling the *reaction* for unexpected
+events, avoiding, for example, the propagation of a failure on safety-critical
+systems.
+
+Runtime Monitors and Reactors
+=============================
+
+A monitor is the central part of the runtime verification of a system. The
+monitor stands in between the formal specification of the desired (or
+undesired) behavior, and the trace of the actual system.
+
+In Linux terms, the runtime verification monitors are encapsulated inside the
+*RV monitor* abstraction. A *RV monitor* includes a reference model of the
+system, a set of instances of the monitor (per-cpu monitor, per-task monitor,
+and so on), and the helper functions that glue the monitor to the system via
+trace, as depicted below::
+
+ Linux   +---- RV Monitor ----------------------------------+ Formal
+  Realm  |                                                  |  Realm
+  +-------------------+     +----------------+     +-----------------+
+  |   Linux kernel    |     |     Monitor    |     |     Reference   |
+  |     Tracing       |  -> |   Instance(s)  | <-  |       Model     |
+  | (instrumentation) |     | (verification) |     | (specification) |
+  +-------------------+     +----------------+     +-----------------+
+         |                          |                       |
+         |                          V                       |
+         |                     +----------+                 |
+         |                     | Reaction |                 |
+         |                     +--+--+--+-+                 |
+         |                        |  |  |                   |
+         |                        |  |  +-> trace output ?  |
+         +------------------------|--|----------------------+
+                                  |  +----> panic ?
+                                  +-------> <user-specified>
+
+In addition to the verification and monitoring of the system, a monitor can
+react to an unexpected event. The forms of reaction can vary from logging the
+event occurrence to the enforcement of the correct behavior to the extreme
+action of taking a system down to avoid the propagation of a failure.
+
+In Linux terms, a *reactor* is an reaction method available for *RV monitors*.
+By default, all monitors should provide a trace output of their actions,
+which is already a reaction. In addition, other reactions will be available
+so the user can enable them as needed.
+
+For further information about the principles of runtime verification and
+RV applied to Linux:
+
+  Bartocci, Ezio, et al. *Introduction to runtime verification.* In: Lectures on
+  Runtime Verification. Springer, Cham, 2018. p. 1-33.
+
+  Falcone, Ylies, et al. *A taxonomy for classifying runtime verification tools.*
+  In: International Conference on Runtime Verification. Springer, Cham, 2018. p.
+  241-262.
+
+  De Oliveira, Daniel Bristot. *Automata-based formal analysis and
+  verification of the real-time Linux kernel.* Ph.D. Thesis, 2020.
+
+Online RV monitors
+==================
+
+Monitors can be classified as *offline* and *online* monitors. *Offline*
+monitor process the traces generated by a system after the events, generally by
+reading the trace execution from a permanent storage system. *Online* monitors
+process the trace during the execution of the system. Online monitors are said
+to be *synchronous* if the processing of an event is attached to the system
+execution, blocking the system during the event monitoring. On the other hand,
+an *asynchronous* monitor has its execution detached from the system. Each type
+of monitor has a set of advantages. For example, *offline* monitors can be
+executed on different machines but require operations to save the log to a
+file. In contrast, *synchronous online* method can react at the exact moment
+a violation occurs.
+
+Another important aspect regarding monitors is the overhead associated with the
+event analysis. If the system generates events at a frequency higher than the
+monitor's ability to process them in the same system, only the *offline*
+methods are viable. On the other hand, if the tracing of the events incurs
+on higher overhead than the simple handling of an event by a monitor, then a
+*synchronous online* monitors will incur on lower overhead.
+
+Indeed, the research presented in:
+
+  De Oliveira, Daniel Bristot; Cucinotta, Tommaso; De Oliveira, Romulo Silva.
+  *Efficient formal verification for the Linux kernel.* In: International
+  Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods. Springer, Cham, 2019.
+  p. 315-332.
+
+Shows that for Deterministic Automata models, the synchronous processing of
+events in-kernel causes lower overhead than saving the same events to the trace
+buffer, not even considering collecting the trace for user-space analysis.
+This motivated the development of an in-kernel interface for online monitors.
+
+For further information about modeling of Linux kernel behavior using automata,
+see:
+
+  De Oliveira, Daniel B.; De Oliveira, Romulo S.; Cucinotta, Tommaso. *A thread
+  synchronization model for the PREEMPT_RT Linux kernel.* Journal of Systems
+  Architecture, 2020, 107: 101729.
+
+The user interface
+==================
+
+The user interface resembles the tracing interface (on purpose). It is
+currently at "/sys/kernel/tracing/rv/".
+
+The following files/folders are currently available:
+
+**available_monitors**
+
+- Reading list the available monitors, one per line
+
+For example::
+
+   # cat available_monitors
+   wip
+   wwnr
+
+**available_reactors**
+
+- Reading shows the available reactors, one per line.
+
+For example::
+
+   # cat available_reactors
+   nop
+   panic
+   printk
+
+**enabled_monitors**:
+
+- Reading lists the enabled monitors, one per line
+- Writing to it enables a given monitor
+- Writing a monitor name with a '!' prefix disables it
+- Truncating the file disables all enabled monitors
+
+For example::
+
+   # cat enabled_monitors
+   # echo wip > enabled_monitors
+   # echo wwnr >> enabled_monitors
+   # cat enabled_monitors
+   wip
+   wwnr
+   # echo '!wip' >> enabled_monitors
+   # cat enabled_monitors
+   wwnr
+   # echo > enabled_monitors
+   # cat enabled_monitors
+   #
+
+Note that it is possible to enable more than one monitor concurrently.
+
+**monitoring_on**
+
+This is an on/off general switcher for monitoring. It resembles the
+"tracing_on" switcher in the trace interface.
+
+- Writing "0" stops the monitoring
+- Writing "1" continues the monitoring
+- Reading returns the current status of the monitoring
+
+Note that it does not disable enabled monitors but stop the per-entity
+monitors monitoring the events received from the system.
+
+**reacting_on**
+
+- Writing "0" prevents reactions for happening
+- Writing "1" enable reactions
+- Reading returns the current status of the reaction
+
+**monitors/**
+
+Each monitor will have its own directory inside "monitors/". There the
+monitor-specific files will be presented. The "monitors/" directory resembles
+the "events" directory on tracefs.
+
+For example::
+
+   # cd monitors/wip/
+   # ls
+   desc  enable
+   # cat desc
+   wakeup in preemptive per-cpu testing monitor.
+   # cat enable
+   0
+
+**monitors/MONITOR/desc**
+
+- Reading shows a description of the monitor *MONITOR*
+
+**monitors/MONITOR/enable**
+
+- Writing "0" disables the *MONITOR*
+- Writing "1" enables the *MONITOR*
+- Reading return the current status of the *MONITOR*
+
+**monitors/MONITOR/reactors**
+
+- List available reactors, with the select reaction for the given *MONITOR*
+  inside "[]". The default one is the nop (no operation) reactor.
+- Writing the name of a reactor enables it to the given MONITOR.
+
+For example::
+
+   # cat monitors/wip/reactors
+   [nop]
+   panic
+   printk
+   # echo panic > monitors/wip/reactors
+   # cat monitors/wip/reactors
+   nop
+   [panic]
+   printk