linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module

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:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:27:38 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 11:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 14:22 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 12:19 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > >> If the correspoding module is unloaded before ftrace_profile_disable()
> > > >> is called, event->profile_disable() won't be called, which can
> > > >> cause oops:
> > > >>
> > > >>   # insmod trace-events-sample.ko
> > > >>   # perf record -f -a -e sample:foo_bar sleep 3 &
> > > >>   # sleep 1
> > > >>   # rmmod trace_events_sample
> > > >>   # insmod trace-events-sample.ko
> > > >>   OOPS!
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hrmm, feel fragile, why don't we check if all a modules tracepoints are
> > > > unused on unload?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't think it's fragile. We are profiling via a module's
> > > tracepoint, so we should pin the module, via module_get().
> > > If event->profile_enable() has been calld, we should make
> > > sure it's profile_disable() will be called.
> > 
> > What I call fragile is that everyone registering a tracepoint 
> > callback will now apparently need to worry about modules, _that_ 
> > is fragile.
> > 
> > Either make module unload look at tracepoint users, or place the 
> > try_get_module() in the registration hooks so that regular users 
> > don't need to worry about it.
> 
> The bug found by Li needs to be fixed obviously.
> 
> I tend to agree with you that this does not appear to be the best 
> place to do it: so you suggest to implicitly increase the module 
> refcount on callback registr instead? (and releasing it when 
> unregistering)
> 
> Same end result, slightly cleaner place to bump the refcount.

Yes, because the user of tracepoints should never need to care about
modules.


--
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/