linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] ftrace: Synchronize variable setting with breakpoints

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: <1338485338.28384.85.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2012 19:28:58 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ftrace: Synchronize variable setting with
 breakpoints

On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:08 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 21:28 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > When the function tracer starts modifying the code via breakpoints
> > > it sets a variable (modifying_ftrace_code) to inform the breakpoint
> > > handler to call the ftrace int3 code.
> > > 
> > > But there's no synchronization between setting this code and the
> > > handler, thus it is possible for the handler to be called on another
> > > CPU before it sees the variable. This will cause a kernel crash as
> > > the int3 handler will not know what to do with it.
> > > 
> > > I originally added smp_mb()'s to force the visibility of the variable
> > > but H. Peter Anvin suggested that I just make it atomic.
> > 
> > Uhm,. maybe. atomic_{inc,dec}() implies a full memory barrier on x86,
> 
> Yeah, I believe (and H. Peter can correct me) that this is all that's
> required for x86.
> 
> > but atomic_read() never has the smp_rmb() required.
> > 
> > Now smp_rmb() is mostly a nop on x86, except for CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE.
> 
> No rmb() is required, as that's supplied by the breakpoint itself.
> Basically, rmb() is used for ordering:
> 
> 	load(A);
> 	rmb();
> 	loab(B);
> 
> To keep the machine from actually doing:
> 
> 	load(B);
> 	load(A);

I know what rmb is for.. I also know you need to pair barriers. Hiding
them in atomic doesn't make the ordering any more obvious.

> But what this is:
> 
> 	<breakpoint>
> 	     |
> 	     +---------> <handler>
> 			    |
> 			load(A);
> 
> We need the load(A) to be after the breakpoint. Is it possible for the
> machine to do it before?:
> 
> 		     load(A)
> 	      |
> 	      |
> 	<breakpoint>
> 	      +----------> test(A)

I don't know, nor did you explain the implicit ordering there. Also in
such diagrams you need the other side as well.

> If another breakpoint is hit (one other than one put in by ftrace) then
> we don't care. It wont crash the system whether or not A is 1 or 0. We
> just need to make sure that a ftrace breakpoint that is hit knows that
> it was a ftrace breakpoint (calls the ftrace handler). No other
> breakpoint should be on a ftrace nop anyway.

So the ordering is like:

---

 CPU-0				CPU-1


 lock inc mod-count /* implicit (w)mb */
 write int3
				<trap-int3> /* implicit (r)mb */
				load mod-count

 sync-ipi-broadcast
 write rest-of-instruction
 sync-ipi-broadcast
 write head-of-instruction
 sync-ipi-broadcast
 lock dec mod-count /* implicit (w)mb */


Such that when we observe the int3 on CPU-1 we also must see the
increment on mod-count.

---

A simple something like the above makes it very clear what we're doing
and what we're expecting. I think a (local) trap should imply a barrier
of sorts but will have to defer to others (hpa?) to confirm. But at the
very least write it down someplace that you are assuming that.



fwiw run_sync() could do with a much bigger comment on why its sane to
enable interrupts.. That simply reeks, enabling interrupts too early can
wreck stuff properly.
--
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/