Range breakpoints will do the wrong thing if the address isn't
aligned. While we're there, add comments about why it's safe for
instruction breakpoints.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/ae25d14d61f2f43b78e0a247e469f3072df7e201.1438312874.git.luto@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
break;
#endif
default:
+ /* AMD range breakpoint */
if (!is_power_of_2(bp->attr.bp_len))
return -EINVAL;
+ if (bp->attr.bp_addr & (bp->attr.bp_len - 1))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ /*
+ * It's impossible to use a range breakpoint to fake out
+ * user vs kernel detection because bp_len - 1 can't
+ * have the high bit set. If we ever allow range instruction
+ * breakpoints, then we'll have to check for kprobe-blacklisted
+ * addresses anywhere in the range.
+ */
if (!cpu_has_bpext)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
info->mask = bp->attr.bp_len - 1;