linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/13] tracing/uprobes: Fetch args before reserving a ring buffer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131031181654.GA11208@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:16:54 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Hyeoncheol Lee <cheol.lee@....com>,
	Hemant Kumar <hkshaw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] tracing/uprobes: Fetch args before reserving a
	ring buffer

On 10/29, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> @@ -630,6 +653,19 @@ probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag, filter_func_t filter)
>  	if (trace_probe_is_enabled(&tu->p))
>  		return -EINTR;
>  
> +	if (atomic_inc_return(&uprobe_buffer_ref) == 1) {
> +		int cpu;
> +
> +		uprobe_cpu_buffer = __alloc_percpu(PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
> +		if (uprobe_cpu_buffer == NULL) {
> +			atomic_dec(&uprobe_buffer_ref);
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +		}
> +
> +		for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> +			mutex_init(&per_cpu(uprobe_cpu_mutex, cpu));
> +	}
> +
>  	WARN_ON(!uprobe_filter_is_empty(&tu->filter));
>  
>  	tu->p.flags |= flag;
> @@ -646,6 +682,11 @@ static void probe_event_disable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag)
>  	if (!trace_probe_is_enabled(&tu->p))
>  		return;
>  
> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&uprobe_buffer_ref)) {
> +		free_percpu(uprobe_cpu_buffer);
> +		uprobe_cpu_buffer = NULL;
> +	}
> +
>  	WARN_ON(!uprobe_filter_is_empty(&tu->filter));

Do we really need atomic_t? probe_event_enable/disable is called under
event_mutex and we rely on this fact anyway.

Otherwise this logic looks racy even with atomic_t, another thread could
use the uninitialized uprobe_cpu_buffer/mutex if it registers another probe
and the handler runs before we complete the initialization, no?

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/