[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49138CAD.3000304@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:32:45 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ananth@...ibm.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes: disable preempt for module_text_address() and
kernel_text_address()
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> __register_kprobe() can be preempted after checking probing address
> but before module_text_address() or try_module_get(), and in this
> interval the module can be unloaded. In that case,
> try_module_get(probed_mod) will access to invalid address,
> or kprobe will probe invalid address.
>
> this patch uses preempt_disable() to protect it and use
> __module_text_address() and __kernel_text_address().
It's good, Thanks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
> ---
>
>>> @@ -718,9 +725,11 @@ static void __kprobes __unregister_kprob
>>> struct kprobe *old_p;
>>>
>>> if (p->mod_refcounted) {
>>> - mod = module_text_address((unsigned long)p->addr);
>>> + preempt_disable();
>>> + mod = __module_text_address((unsigned long)p->addr);
>>> if (mod)
>>> module_put(mod);
>>> + preempt_enable();
>> this is bad fix, we have had a reference to mod. we don't need
>> preempt_disable() before module_put(mod).
>
> Hmm, Indeed.
> So let's add a comment there.
>
> kernel/kprobes.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Index: 2.6.28-rc3/kernel/kprobes.c
> ===================================================================
> --- 2.6.28-rc3.orig/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ 2.6.28-rc3/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -613,30 +613,37 @@ static int __kprobes __register_kprobe(s
> return -EINVAL;
> p->addr = addr;
>
> - if (!kernel_text_address((unsigned long) p->addr) ||
> - in_kprobes_functions((unsigned long) p->addr))
> + preempt_disable();
> + if (!__kernel_text_address((unsigned long) p->addr) ||
> + in_kprobes_functions((unsigned long) p->addr)) {
> + preempt_enable();
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> p->mod_refcounted = 0;
>
> /*
> * Check if are we probing a module.
> */
> - probed_mod = module_text_address((unsigned long) p->addr);
> + probed_mod = __module_text_address((unsigned long) p->addr);
> if (probed_mod) {
> - struct module *calling_mod = module_text_address(called_from);
> + struct module *calling_mod;
> + calling_mod = __module_text_address(called_from);
> /*
> * We must allow modules to probe themself and in this case
> * avoid incrementing the module refcount, so as to allow
> * unloading of self probing modules.
> */
> if (calling_mod && calling_mod != probed_mod) {
> - if (unlikely(!try_module_get(probed_mod)))
> + if (unlikely(!try_module_get(probed_mod))) {
> + preempt_enable();
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
> p->mod_refcounted = 1;
> } else
> probed_mod = NULL;
> }
> + preempt_enable();
>
> p->nmissed = 0;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->list);
> @@ -718,6 +725,10 @@ static void __kprobes __unregister_kprob
> struct kprobe *old_p;
>
> if (p->mod_refcounted) {
> + /*
> + * Since we've already incremented refcount,
> + * we don't need to disable preemption.
> + */
> mod = module_text_address((unsigned long)p->addr);
> if (mod)
> module_put(mod);
>
--
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