Re: [PATCHSET 00/13] tracing/uprobes: Add support for more fetchmethods (v6)

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But in any case, I strongly believe that it doesn't make any sense to
> > rely on tu->inode in get_user_vaddr().
>
> Hmm. But I forgot about the case when you probe the function in libc
> and want to dump the variable in libc...
>
> So probably I was wrong and this all needs more thinking. Damn.
> Perhaps we really need to pass @file/offset, but it is not clear what
> we can do with bss/anon-mapping.

Or. Not that I really like this, but just for discussion...

How about

	static void __user *get_user_vaddr(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr)
	{
		return (void __force __user *)addr + instruction_pointer(regs);
	}

?

This should solve the problems with relocations/randomization/bss.

The obvious disadvantage is that it is not easy to calculate the
offset we need to pass as an argument, it depends on the probed
function.

And this still doesn't allow to, say, probe the executable but read
the data from libc. Unless, again, we attach to the running process
or randomize_va_space = 0, so we can know it in advance. But otherwise
I do not think there is any solution.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/