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, 294 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/vcpu-requests.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/vcpu-requests.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..06718b9bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/vcpu-requests.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=================
+KVM VCPU Requests
+=================
+
+Overview
+========
+
+KVM supports an internal API enabling threads to request a VCPU thread to
+perform some activity.  For example, a thread may request a VCPU to flush
+its TLB with a VCPU request.  The API consists of the following functions::
+
+  /* Check if any requests are pending for VCPU @vcpu. */
+  bool kvm_request_pending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+
+  /* Check if VCPU @vcpu has request @req pending. */
+  bool kvm_test_request(int req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+
+  /* Clear request @req for VCPU @vcpu. */
+  void kvm_clear_request(int req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+
+  /*
+   * Check if VCPU @vcpu has request @req pending. When the request is
+   * pending it will be cleared and a memory barrier, which pairs with
+   * another in kvm_make_request(), will be issued.
+   */
+  bool kvm_check_request(int req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+
+  /*
+   * Make request @req of VCPU @vcpu. Issues a memory barrier, which pairs
+   * with another in kvm_check_request(), prior to setting the request.
+   */
+  void kvm_make_request(int req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+
+  /* Make request @req of all VCPUs of the VM with struct kvm @kvm. */
+  bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req);
+
+Typically a requester wants the VCPU to perform the activity as soon
+as possible after making the request.  This means most requests
+(kvm_make_request() calls) are followed by a call to kvm_vcpu_kick(),
+and kvm_make_all_cpus_request() has the kicking of all VCPUs built
+into it.
+
+VCPU Kicks
+----------
+
+The goal of a VCPU kick is to bring a VCPU thread out of guest mode in
+order to perform some KVM maintenance.  To do so, an IPI is sent, forcing
+a guest mode exit.  However, a VCPU thread may not be in guest mode at the
+time of the kick.  Therefore, depending on the mode and state of the VCPU
+thread, there are two other actions a kick may take.  All three actions
+are listed below:
+
+1) Send an IPI.  This forces a guest mode exit.
+2) Waking a sleeping VCPU.  Sleeping VCPUs are VCPU threads outside guest
+   mode that wait on waitqueues.  Waking them removes the threads from
+   the waitqueues, allowing the threads to run again.  This behavior
+   may be suppressed, see KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP below.
+3) Nothing.  When the VCPU is not in guest mode and the VCPU thread is not
+   sleeping, then there is nothing to do.
+
+VCPU Mode
+---------
+
+VCPUs have a mode state, ``vcpu->mode``, that is used to track whether the
+guest is running in guest mode or not, as well as some specific
+outside guest mode states.  The architecture may use ``vcpu->mode`` to
+ensure VCPU requests are seen by VCPUs (see "Ensuring Requests Are Seen"),
+as well as to avoid sending unnecessary IPIs (see "IPI Reduction"), and
+even to ensure IPI acknowledgements are waited upon (see "Waiting for
+Acknowledgements").  The following modes are defined:
+
+OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE
+
+  The VCPU thread is outside guest mode.
+
+IN_GUEST_MODE
+
+  The VCPU thread is in guest mode.
+
+EXITING_GUEST_MODE
+
+  The VCPU thread is transitioning from IN_GUEST_MODE to
+  OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE.
+
+READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES
+
+  The VCPU thread is outside guest mode, but it wants the sender of
+  certain VCPU requests, namely KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, to wait until the VCPU
+  thread is done reading the page tables.
+
+VCPU Request Internals
+======================
+
+VCPU requests are simply bit indices of the ``vcpu->requests`` bitmap.
+This means general bitops, like those documented in [atomic-ops]_ could
+also be used, e.g. ::
+
+  clear_bit(KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK & KVM_REQUEST_MASK, &vcpu->requests);
+
+However, VCPU request users should refrain from doing so, as it would
+break the abstraction.  The first 8 bits are reserved for architecture
+independent requests; all additional bits are available for architecture
+dependent requests.
+
+Architecture Independent Requests
+---------------------------------
+
+KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH
+
+  KVM's common MMU notifier may need to flush all of a guest's TLB
+  entries, calling kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() to do so.  Architectures that
+  choose to use the common kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() implementation will
+  need to handle this VCPU request.
+
+KVM_REQ_VM_DEAD
+
+  This request informs all VCPUs that the VM is dead and unusable, e.g. due to
+  fatal error or because the VM's state has been intentionally destroyed.
+
+KVM_REQ_UNBLOCK
+
+  This request informs the vCPU to exit kvm_vcpu_block.  It is used for
+  example from timer handlers that run on the host on behalf of a vCPU,
+  or in order to update the interrupt routing and ensure that assigned
+  devices will wake up the vCPU.
+
+KVM_REQ_OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE
+
+  This "request" ensures the target vCPU has exited guest mode prior to the
+  sender of the request continuing on.  No action needs be taken by the target,
+  and so no request is actually logged for the target.  This request is similar
+  to a "kick", but unlike a kick it guarantees the vCPU has actually exited
+  guest mode.  A kick only guarantees the vCPU will exit at some point in the
+  future, e.g. a previous kick may have started the process, but there's no
+  guarantee the to-be-kicked vCPU has fully exited guest mode.
+
+KVM_REQUEST_MASK
+----------------
+
+VCPU requests should be masked by KVM_REQUEST_MASK before using them with
+bitops.  This is because only the lower 8 bits are used to represent the
+request's number.  The upper bits are used as flags.  Currently only two
+flags are defined.
+
+VCPU Request Flags
+------------------
+
+KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP
+
+  This flag is applied to requests that only need immediate attention
+  from VCPUs running in guest mode.  That is, sleeping VCPUs do not need
+  to be awakened for these requests.  Sleeping VCPUs will handle the
+  requests when they are awakened later for some other reason.
+
+KVM_REQUEST_WAIT
+
+  When requests with this flag are made with kvm_make_all_cpus_request(),
+  then the caller will wait for each VCPU to acknowledge its IPI before
+  proceeding.  This flag only applies to VCPUs that would receive IPIs.
+  If, for example, the VCPU is sleeping, so no IPI is necessary, then
+  the requesting thread does not wait.  This means that this flag may be
+  safely combined with KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP.  See "Waiting for
+  Acknowledgements" for more information about requests with
+  KVM_REQUEST_WAIT.
+
+VCPU Requests with Associated State
+===================================
+
+Requesters that want the receiving VCPU to handle new state need to ensure
+the newly written state is observable to the receiving VCPU thread's CPU
+by the time it observes the request.  This means a write memory barrier
+must be inserted after writing the new state and before setting the VCPU
+request bit.  Additionally, on the receiving VCPU thread's side, a
+corresponding read barrier must be inserted after reading the request bit
+and before proceeding to read the new state associated with it.  See
+scenario 3, Message and Flag, of [lwn-mb]_ and the kernel documentation
+[memory-barriers]_.
+
+The pair of functions, kvm_check_request() and kvm_make_request(), provide
+the memory barriers, allowing this requirement to be handled internally by
+the API.
+
+Ensuring Requests Are Seen
+==========================
+
+When making requests to VCPUs, we want to avoid the receiving VCPU
+executing in guest mode for an arbitrary long time without handling the
+request.  We can be sure this won't happen as long as we ensure the VCPU
+thread checks kvm_request_pending() before entering guest mode and that a
+kick will send an IPI to force an exit from guest mode when necessary.
+Extra care must be taken to cover the period after the VCPU thread's last
+kvm_request_pending() check and before it has entered guest mode, as kick
+IPIs will only trigger guest mode exits for VCPU threads that are in guest
+mode or at least have already disabled interrupts in order to prepare to
+enter guest mode.  This means that an optimized implementation (see "IPI
+Reduction") must be certain when it's safe to not send the IPI.  One
+solution, which all architectures except s390 apply, is to:
+
+- set ``vcpu->mode`` to IN_GUEST_MODE between disabling the interrupts and
+  the last kvm_request_pending() check;
+- enable interrupts atomically when entering the guest.
+
+This solution also requires memory barriers to be placed carefully in both
+the requesting thread and the receiving VCPU.  With the memory barriers we
+can exclude the possibility of a VCPU thread observing
+!kvm_request_pending() on its last check and then not receiving an IPI for
+the next request made of it, even if the request is made immediately after
+the check.  This is done by way of the Dekker memory barrier pattern
+(scenario 10 of [lwn-mb]_).  As the Dekker pattern requires two variables,
+this solution pairs ``vcpu->mode`` with ``vcpu->requests``.  Substituting
+them into the pattern gives::
+
+  CPU1                                    CPU2
+  =================                       =================
+  local_irq_disable();
+  WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->mode, IN_GUEST_MODE);  kvm_make_request(REQ, vcpu);
+  smp_mb();                               smp_mb();
+  if (kvm_request_pending(vcpu)) {        if (READ_ONCE(vcpu->mode) ==
+                                              IN_GUEST_MODE) {
+      ...abort guest entry...                 ...send IPI...
+  }                                       }
+
+As stated above, the IPI is only useful for VCPU threads in guest mode or
+that have already disabled interrupts.  This is why this specific case of
+the Dekker pattern has been extended to disable interrupts before setting
+``vcpu->mode`` to IN_GUEST_MODE.  WRITE_ONCE() and READ_ONCE() are used to
+pedantically implement the memory barrier pattern, guaranteeing the
+compiler doesn't interfere with ``vcpu->mode``'s carefully planned
+accesses.
+
+IPI Reduction
+-------------
+
+As only one IPI is needed to get a VCPU to check for any/all requests,
+then they may be coalesced.  This is easily done by having the first IPI
+sending kick also change the VCPU mode to something !IN_GUEST_MODE.  The
+transitional state, EXITING_GUEST_MODE, is used for this purpose.
+
+Waiting for Acknowledgements
+----------------------------
+
+Some requests, those with the KVM_REQUEST_WAIT flag set, require IPIs to
+be sent, and the acknowledgements to be waited upon, even when the target
+VCPU threads are in modes other than IN_GUEST_MODE.  For example, one case
+is when a target VCPU thread is in READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES mode, which
+is set after disabling interrupts.  To support these cases, the
+KVM_REQUEST_WAIT flag changes the condition for sending an IPI from
+checking that the VCPU is IN_GUEST_MODE to checking that it is not
+OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE.
+
+Request-less VCPU Kicks
+-----------------------
+
+As the determination of whether or not to send an IPI depends on the
+two-variable Dekker memory barrier pattern, then it's clear that
+request-less VCPU kicks are almost never correct.  Without the assurance
+that a non-IPI generating kick will still result in an action by the
+receiving VCPU, as the final kvm_request_pending() check does for
+request-accompanying kicks, then the kick may not do anything useful at
+all.  If, for instance, a request-less kick was made to a VCPU that was
+just about to set its mode to IN_GUEST_MODE, meaning no IPI is sent, then
+the VCPU thread may continue its entry without actually having done
+whatever it was the kick was meant to initiate.
+
+One exception is x86's posted interrupt mechanism.  In this case, however,
+even the request-less VCPU kick is coupled with the same
+local_irq_disable() + smp_mb() pattern described above; the ON bit
+(Outstanding Notification) in the posted interrupt descriptor takes the
+role of ``vcpu->requests``.  When sending a posted interrupt, PIR.ON is
+set before reading ``vcpu->mode``; dually, in the VCPU thread,
+vmx_sync_pir_to_irr() reads PIR after setting ``vcpu->mode`` to
+IN_GUEST_MODE.
+
+Additional Considerations
+=========================
+
+Sleeping VCPUs
+--------------
+
+VCPU threads may need to consider requests before and/or after calling
+functions that may put them to sleep, e.g. kvm_vcpu_block().  Whether they
+do or not, and, if they do, which requests need consideration, is
+architecture dependent.  kvm_vcpu_block() calls kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable()
+to check if it should awaken.  One reason to do so is to provide
+architectures a function where requests may be checked if necessary.
+
+References
+==========
+
+.. [atomic-ops] Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt and Documentation/atomic_t.txt
+.. [memory-barriers] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+.. [lwn-mb] https://lwn.net/Articles/573436/