linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/18 v2] ftrace: Add hash list to save RCU unsafe functions

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: <20130904012404.GI3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:24:04 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/18 v2] ftrace: Add hash list to save RCU unsafe
 functions

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 07:57:05PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:18:08 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Just found this bug. Strange that gcc never gave me a warning :-/
> > 
> > I can't give gcc too much trouble, as I also didn't give you an
> > uninitialized-variable warning.
> 
> I was also chasing down a nasty bug that looked to be a pointer
> corruption somewhere. Still never found exactly where it happened, but
> it always happened with the following conditions:
> 
> synchronize_sched() was in progress
> 
> The ftrace_unsafe_callback() was preempted by an interrupt
> 
> lockdep was processing a lock
> 
> 
> A crash would happen which had memory corruption involved. But the
> above seemed always to be in play.
> 
> Now, I changed the logic from disabling context level recursion to
> disabling recursion at all. That is, the original code had used a
> series of bits to test for recursion (via helper functions) that would
> allow for the callback to be preempted by an interrupt, and then be
> called again.
> 
> The new code sets a per_cpu flag, and will not allow the callback to
> recurse if it were preempted by an interrupt. No real need to allow for
> that anyway.
> 
> I can go and debug this further, because I'm nervous that lockdep may
> have some kind of bug that the function tracer can trigger. But I'm not
> too concerned about it.
> 
> Here's the diff of the new code against the previous code.
> 
> Paul, can I still keep all your acks and reviewed-bys on this?

Yep, but some questions below.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- Steve
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 310b727..899c8c1 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -1373,7 +1373,7 @@ ftrace_hash_rec_enable(struct ftrace_ops *ops, int filter_hash);
> 
>  static int ftrace_convert_size_to_bits(int size)
>  {
> -	int bits;
> +	int bits = 0;
> 
>  	/*
>  	 * Make the hash size about 1/2 the # found
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c b/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c
> index f5a9031..0883069 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c
> @@ -561,16 +561,21 @@ static inline int init_func_cmd_traceon(void)
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_UNSAFE_RCU_CHECKER
> 
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, ftrace_rcu_running);
>  static atomic_t ftrace_unsafe_rcu_disabled;
> 
>  void ftrace_unsafe_rcu_checker_disable(void)
>  {
>  	atomic_inc(&ftrace_unsafe_rcu_disabled);
> +	/* Make sure the update is seen immediately */
> +	smp_wmb();

	smp_mb__after_atomic_inc()?

>  }
> 
>  void ftrace_unsafe_rcu_checker_enable(void)
>  {
>  	atomic_dec(&ftrace_unsafe_rcu_disabled);
> +	/* Make sure the update is seen immediately */
> +	smp_wmb();

	smp_mb__after_atomic_dec()?

>  }
> 
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, ftrace_rcu_func);
> @@ -588,15 +593,14 @@ static void
>  ftrace_unsafe_callback(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
>  		       struct ftrace_ops *op, struct pt_regs *pt_regs)
>  {
> -	int bit;
> -
> +	/* Make sure we see disabled or not first */
> +	smp_rmb();

	smp_mb__before_atomic_inc()?

>  	if (atomic_read(&ftrace_unsafe_rcu_disabled))
>  		return;
> 
>  	preempt_disable_notrace();
> 
> -	bit = trace_test_and_set_recursion(TRACE_FTRACE_START, TRACE_FTRACE_MAX);
> -	if (bit < 0)
> +	if (this_cpu_read(ftrace_rcu_running))
>  		goto out;
> 
>  	if (WARN_ONCE(ftrace_rcu_unsafe(ip),
> @@ -604,13 +608,15 @@ ftrace_unsafe_callback(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
>  		      (void *)ip))
>  		goto out;
> 
> +	this_cpu_write(ftrace_rcu_running, 1);
>  	this_cpu_write(ftrace_rcu_func, ip);
> +
>  	/* Should trigger a RCU splat if called from unsafe RCU function */
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  	this_cpu_write(ftrace_rcu_func, 0);
> 
> -	trace_clear_recursion(bit);
> +	this_cpu_write(ftrace_rcu_running, 0);
>   out:
>  	preempt_enable_notrace();
>  }
> 

--
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/