lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: 25 Mar 2007 22:29:51 -0400 From: fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) To: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com> Cc: "Stone, Joshua I" <joshua.i.stone@...el.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>, Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, SystemTAP <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>, Satoshi Oshima <soshima@...hat.com>, Hideo Aoki <haoki@...hat.com>, Yumiko Sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>, hch@...radead.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 1/4] kprobe fast unregistration Hi - "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com> writes: > [...] > > Really? What possible problems can occur? The worst that occurs > > to me is that if someone forgets to call the commit function, the > > kprobes will still be disabled, but memory won't be recycled for a > > while. [...] > > Yes, Have you looked at the code? A little, but we were talking more about the interface than the implementation. > If someone forgets to call the commit function, the kprobe will be > disabled and yes the memory won't be recycled but the worst problem > is that if the probe is on a module function then that module can't > be unloaded at all [...] I believe there is already a kprobes patch in the queue for enumerating active probes in some /proc file. Should a module be locked into memory for such a reason, finding the culprit should not be difficult. > Hence, my suggestion would be to call them as disable_kprobe() > (instead of unregister_kprobes_fast() which is confusing and error > prone) and also to provide an opposite function to reenable_kprobe() > and finally provide unregister_disabled_kprobes() which is > essentially the same as commit_kprobes(). One problem with this idea is that if the unregister_fast()=disable() is to become reversible, then the renamed commit_kprobes() will no longer be indempotent. There can no longer be a single system-wide deferred-kprobe-cleanup list, since individual kprobes clients might want to reinstate their probes in the future. > > Would it be possible to allay even that concern with an automated > > deferred/periodic commit? > > > I would recomand that users call unregister_disabled_kprobes() explictly. But this would solve both problems (memory leaks and outstanding reference counts on modules). In this variant, unregister_kprobes_fast could replace unregister_kprobes outright, and the (builtin deferred) commit function would need not be exported. - FChE - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists