x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()

This is an extension of commit b506a9d08b ("x86: code clarification patch
to Kprobes arch code"). As that commit explains, even though
kprobe_running() can't be called with preemption enabled, preemption does
not need to be disabled. If preemption is enabled, then this can't be
originate from a kprobe.

Also, use X86_TRAP_PF instead of 14.

Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: "Naveen N. Rao" <[email protected]>
Cc: Anil S Keshavamurthy <[email protected]>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]

arch/x86/mm/fault.c

@@ -44,17 +44,19 @@ kmmio_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr)
 
 static nokprobe_inline int kprobes_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	int ret = 0;
-
-	/* kprobe_running() needs smp_processor_id() */
-	if (kprobes_built_in() && !user_mode(regs)) {
-		preempt_disable();
-		if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, 14))
-			ret = 1;
-		preempt_enable();
-	}
-
-	return ret;
+	if (!kprobes_built_in())
+		return 0;
+	if (user_mode(regs))
+		return 0;
+	/*
+	 * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed to call
+	 * kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
+	 */
+	if (preemptible())
+		return 0;
+	if (!kprobe_running())
+		return 0;
+	return kprobe_fault_handler(regs, X86_TRAP_PF);
 }
 
 /*