linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] tracing/kprobes: Fail to unregister if probe event files are open

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:	Thu, 4 Jul 2013 20:48:13 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] tracing/kprobes: Fail to unregister if probe
	event files are open

On 07/04, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/07/04 12:33), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +	/* Will fail if probe is being used by ftrace or perf */
> > +	if (unregister_probe_event(tp))
> > +		return -EBUSY;
> > +
> >  	__unregister_trace_probe(tp);
> >  	list_del(&tp->list);
> > -	unregister_probe_event(tp);
> >
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
>
> This may cause an unexpected access violation at kprobe handler because
> unregister_probe_event frees event_call/event_files and it will be
> accessed until kprobe is *completely* disabled.

I don't think so... Please correct me.

(but yes I think the patch needs a small update, see below).

> Actually disable_kprobe() doesn't ensure to finish the current running
> kprobe handlers.

Yes. in fact disable_trace_probe(file != NULL) does, but perf doesn't.

> Thus, even if trace_probe_is_enabled() returns false,
> we must do synchronize_sched() for waiting, before unregister_probe_event().

No, I think we should simply kill trace_probe_is_enabled() here.
And synchronize_sched() _before_ unregister_probe_event() can't
help, exactly because trace_probe_is_enabled() is racy.

> OTOH, unregister_kprobe() waits for that.

Yes.

So I think we only need to move kfree(tp->call.print_fmt). In fact I
already wrote the patch assuming that trace_remove_event_call() will
be changed as we discussed.

So the sequence should be:

	if (trace_remove_event_call(...))
		return;

	/* does synchronize_sched */
	unregister_kprobe();

	kfree(everything);

Agreed?

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/