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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87y554382a.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:06:05 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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

Hi Oleg,

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:16:54 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.

Looking at the code, it seems probe_event_enable/disable() is called
without event_mutex when it called from sys_perf_event_open().  So we
still need to protect refcount from concurrent accesses.

>
> 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?

But yeah, this is indeed a problem.  Thanks for pointing it out.  I'll
put a mutex to prevent such cases.

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/