linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.14 089/125] tracing: Have branch tracer use recursive field of task struct

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: <20150731194030.231282280@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:41:29 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3.14 089/125] tracing: Have branch tracer use recursive field of task struct

3.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>

commit 6224beb12e190ff11f3c7d4bf50cb2922878f600 upstream.

Fengguang Wu's tests triggered a bug in the branch tracer's start up
test when CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT set. This was because that config
adds some debug logic in the per cpu field, which calls back into
the branch tracer.

The branch tracer has its own recursive checks, but uses a per cpu
variable to implement it. If retrieving the per cpu variable calls
back into the branch tracer, you can see how things will break.

Instead of using a per cpu variable, use the trace_recursion field
of the current task struct. Simply set a bit when entering the
branch tracing and clear it when leaving. If the bit is set on
entry, just don't do the tracing.

There's also the case with lockdep, as the local_irq_save() called
before the recursion can also trigger code that can call back into
the function. Changing that to a raw_local_irq_save() will protect
that as well.

This prevents the recursion and the inevitable crash that follows.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150630141803.GA28071@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com

Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/trace/trace.h        |    1 +
 kernel/trace/trace_branch.c |   17 ++++++++++-------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/trace/trace.h
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace.h
@@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ enum {
 
 	TRACE_CONTROL_BIT,
 
+	TRACE_BRANCH_BIT,
 /*
  * Abuse of the trace_recursion.
  * As we need a way to maintain state if we are tracing the function
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_branch.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_branch.c
@@ -37,9 +37,12 @@ probe_likely_condition(struct ftrace_bra
 	struct trace_branch *entry;
 	struct ring_buffer *buffer;
 	unsigned long flags;
-	int cpu, pc;
+	int pc;
 	const char *p;
 
+	if (current->trace_recursion & TRACE_BRANCH_BIT)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * I would love to save just the ftrace_likely_data pointer, but
 	 * this code can also be used by modules. Ugly things can happen
@@ -50,10 +53,10 @@ probe_likely_condition(struct ftrace_bra
 	if (unlikely(!tr))
 		return;
 
-	local_irq_save(flags);
-	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
-	data = per_cpu_ptr(tr->trace_buffer.data, cpu);
-	if (atomic_inc_return(&data->disabled) != 1)
+	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
+	current->trace_recursion |= TRACE_BRANCH_BIT;
+	data = this_cpu_ptr(tr->trace_buffer.data);
+	if (atomic_read(&data->disabled))
 		goto out;
 
 	pc = preempt_count();
@@ -82,8 +85,8 @@ probe_likely_condition(struct ftrace_bra
 		__buffer_unlock_commit(buffer, event);
 
  out:
-	atomic_dec(&data->disabled);
-	local_irq_restore(flags);
+	current->trace_recursion &= ~TRACE_BRANCH_BIT;
+	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
 }
 
 static inline


--
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/