linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 18:36:45 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        alexis.berlemont@...il.com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference
 count (semaphore)

On 07/03, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> Ok let me explain the difference.
>
> Current approach:
>
>     ------------
>     register_for_each_vma() / uprobe_mmap()
>       install_breakpoint()
>         uprobe_write_opcode() {
>                 if (instruction is not already patched) {
>                         /* Gets called only _once_. */
>                         increment the reference counter;
>                         patch the instruction;
>                 }
>         }

Yes I see. And I am not sure this all is correct. And I still hope we can do
something better, I'll write another email.

For now, let's discuss your current approach.

> Now, if I put it inside install_breakpoint():
>
>     ------------
>     uprobe_register()
>       register_for_each_vma()
>         install_breakpoint() {
>                 /* Called _for each consumer_ */

How so? it is not called for each consumer. I think you misread this code.

>                 increment the reference counter _once_;
>                 uprobe_write_opcode()
> 		...
>         }

So. I meant that you can move the _same_ logic into install_breakpoint() and
remove_breakpoint(). And note that ref_ctr_updated in uprobe_write_opcode() is
only needed because it can retry the fault.

IOW, you can simply do update_ref_ctr(is_register => 1) at the start of
install_breakpoint(), and update_ref_ctr(0) in remove_breakpoint(), there are
no other callers of uprobe_write_opcode(). To clarify, it is indirectly called
by set_swbp() and set_orig_insn(), but this doesn't matter.

Or you can kill update_ref_ctr() and (roughly) do

	rc_vma = find_ref_ctr_vma(...);
	if (rc_vma)
		__update_ref_ctr(..., 1);
	else
		delayed_uprobe_add(...);

at the start of install_breakpoint() and

	rc_vma = find_ref_ctr_vma(...);
	if (rc_vma)
		__update_ref_ctr(..., -1);
	delayed_uprobe_remove(...);

in remove_breakpoint().

>     uprobe_mmap()
>       install_breakpoint() {
>                 increment the reference counter _for each consumer_;

Again, I do not understand where do you see the "for each consumer" thing.

>                 uprobe_write_opcode()

In short. There is a 1:1 relationship between uprobe_write_opcode(is_register => 1)
and install_breakpoint(), and between uprobe_write_opcode(is_register => 0) and
remove_breakpoint(). Whatever uprobe_write_opcode() can do if is_register == 1 can be
done in install_breakpoint(), the same for is_register == 0 and remove_breakpont().

What have I missed?

Oleg.