linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu

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]

Message-ID: <20120420183718.GA2236@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:37:18 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id

On 04/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 23:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > (And perhaps we can stop right here? I mean how often this can
> >  slow down the debugger which installs int3 in the same mm?)
> >
> > Now we need to clear MMF_HAS_UPROBE somehowe, when the last
> > uprobe goes away. Lets ignore uprobe_map/unmap for simplicity.
> >
> > 	- We add another flag, MMF_UPROBE_RECALC, it is set by
> > 	  remove_breakpoint().
> >
> > 	- We change handle_swbp(). Ignoring all details it does:
> >
> > 		if (find_uprobe(vaddr))
> > 			process_uprobe();
> > 		else if (test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBE) && test_bit(MMF_UPROBE_RECALC))
> > 			recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag();
> >
> > 	  where recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag() checks all vmas and either
> > 	  clears both flags or MMF_UPROBE_RECALC only.
> >
> > 	  This is the really slow O(n) path, but it can only happen after
> > 	  unregister, and only if we hit another non-uprobe breakpoint
> > 	  in the same mm.
> >
> > Something like this. What do you think?
>
> I think I can live with the simple set MMF_HAS_UPROBE and leave it at
> that.

Sure, I agree.

A false positive MMF_HAS_UPROBE can only slow down the non-uprobe
int3 in the same ->mm, I think we can tolerate this.

> The better optimization seems to be to not install breakpoints
> when ->filter() excludes the task..

Ah, this is another story. And I agree this is more important.

So far I do not understand what we should do. Of course, it would
be simple to add the filtering when we install the breakpoint but
I don't think it is that simple, even if we ignore the nasty
complications with multiple consumers with different filters.

Say, a user wants to probe /sbin/init only. What if init forks?
We should remove breakpoints from child->mm somehow.

And then we also need the filtering in uprobe_mmap() at least.

But yes, I agree, it would be very nice to do this.

Oleg.

--
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/