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, 78 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs b/scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..df864437c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+//! Test builder for `rustdoc`-generated tests.
+//!
+//! This script is a hack to extract the test from `rustdoc`'s output. Ideally, `rustdoc` would
+//! have an option to generate this information instead, e.g. as JSON output.
+//!
+//! The `rustdoc`-generated test names look like `{file}_{line}_{number}`, e.g.
+//! `...path_rust_kernel_sync_arc_rs_42_0`. `number` is the "test number", needed in cases like
+//! a macro that expands into items with doctests is invoked several times within the same line.
+//!
+//! However, since these names are used for bisection in CI, the line number makes it not stable
+//! at all. In the future, we would like `rustdoc` to give us the Rust item path associated with
+//! the test, plus a "test number" (for cases with several examples per item) and generate a name
+//! from that. For the moment, we generate ourselves a new name, `{file}_{number}` instead, in
+//! the `gen` script (done there since we need to be aware of all the tests in a given file).
+
+use std::io::Read;
+
+fn main() {
+    let mut stdin = std::io::stdin().lock();
+    let mut body = String::new();
+    stdin.read_to_string(&mut body).unwrap();
+
+    // Find the generated function name looking for the inner function inside `main()`.
+    //
+    // The line we are looking for looks like one of the following:
+    //
+    // ```
+    // fn main() { #[allow(non_snake_case)] fn _doctest_main_rust_kernel_file_rs_28_0() {
+    // fn main() { #[allow(non_snake_case)] fn _doctest_main_rust_kernel_file_rs_37_0() -> Result<(), impl core::fmt::Debug> {
+    // ```
+    //
+    // It should be unlikely that doctest code matches such lines (when code is formatted properly).
+    let rustdoc_function_name = body
+        .lines()
+        .find_map(|line| {
+            Some(
+                line.split_once("fn main() {")?
+                    .1
+                    .split_once("fn ")?
+                    .1
+                    .split_once("()")?
+                    .0,
+            )
+            .filter(|x| x.chars().all(|c| c.is_alphanumeric() || c == '_'))
+        })
+        .expect("No test function found in `rustdoc`'s output.");
+
+    // Replicate `rustdoc` 1.87+ behaviour [1] by fully qualifying `Result` to avoid the collision
+    // with our own `Result` coming from the prelude.
+    //
+    // [1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137807
+    //
+    // TODO: Remove this when MSRV is bumped above 1.87.
+    let body = body.replace(
+        &format!("{rustdoc_function_name}() -> Result<(), impl core::fmt::Debug> {{"),
+        // This intentionally does not use absolute paths to match `rustdoc` 1.87 behaviour.
+        &format!("{rustdoc_function_name}() -> core::result::Result<(), impl core::fmt::Debug> {{"),
+    );
+
+    // For tests that get generated with `Result`, like above, `rustdoc` generates an `unwrap()` on
+    // the return value to check there were no returned errors. Instead, we use our assert macro
+    // since we want to just fail the test, not panic the kernel.
+    //
+    // We save the result in a variable so that the failed assertion message looks nicer.
+    let body = body.replace(
+        &format!("}} {rustdoc_function_name}().unwrap() }}"),
+        &format!("}} let test_return_value = {rustdoc_function_name}(); assert!(test_return_value.is_ok()); }}"),
+    );
+
+    // Figure out a smaller test name based on the generated function name.
+    let name = rustdoc_function_name.split_once("_rust_kernel_").unwrap().1;
+
+    let path = format!("rust/test/doctests/kernel/{name}");
+
+    std::fs::write(path, body.as_bytes()).unwrap();
+}