linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or

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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:15:15 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271
 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:59:25 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > Could you please let me know if tracing happens in NMI handlers?
> > > > If so, a bit of additional code will be needed.
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > PS.  Which reminds me, any short-term uses of RCU_TASKS?  This represents
> > > >      3 of my 16 test scenarios, which is getting hard to justify for
> > > >      something that isn't used.  Especially given that I will need to
> > > >      add more scenarios for parallel-callbacks SRCU...  
> > > 
> > > The RCU_TASK implementation is next on my todo list. Yes, there's going
> > > to be plenty of users very soon. Not for 4.12 but definitely for 4.13.
> > > 
> > > Sorry for the delay in implementing that :-/  
> > 
> > OK, I will wait a few months before checking again...
> > 
> 
> Actually, I took a quick look at what needs to be done, and I think it
> is *really* easy, and may be available in 4.12! Here's the current
> patch.

Cool!!!

> I can probably do a patch to allow optimized kprobes on PREEMPT kernels
> as well.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 8efd9fe..28e3019 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -2808,18 +2808,28 @@ static int ftrace_shutdown(struct ftrace_ops *ops, int command)
>  	 * callers are done before leaving this function.
>  	 * The same goes for freeing the per_cpu data of the per_cpu
>  	 * ops.
> -	 *
> -	 * Again, normal synchronize_sched() is not good enough.
> -	 * We need to do a hard force of sched synchronization.
> -	 * This is because we use preempt_disable() to do RCU, but
> -	 * the function tracers can be called where RCU is not watching
> -	 * (like before user_exit()). We can not rely on the RCU
> -	 * infrastructure to do the synchronization, thus we must do it
> -	 * ourselves.
>  	 */
>  	if (ops->flags & (FTRACE_OPS_FL_DYNAMIC | FTRACE_OPS_FL_PER_CPU)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * We need to do a hard force of sched synchronization.
> +		 * This is because we use preempt_disable() to do RCU, but
> +		 * the function tracers can be called where RCU is not watching
> +		 * (like before user_exit()). We can not rely on the RCU
> +		 * infrastructure to do the synchronization, thus we must do it
> +		 * ourselves.
> +		 */
>  		schedule_on_each_cpu(ftrace_sync);

Great header comment on ftrace_sync(): "Yes, function tracing is rude."
And schedule_on_each_cpu() looks like a great workqueue gatling gun!  ;-)

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> +		/*
> +		 * When the kernel is preeptive, tasks can be preempted
> +		 * while on a ftrace trampoline. Just scheduling a task on
> +		 * a CPU is not good enough to flush them. Calling
> +		 * synchronize_rcu_tasks() will wait for those tasks to
> +		 * execute and either schedule voluntarily or enter user space.
> +		 */
> +		synchronize_rcu_tasks();
> +#endif

How about this to save a line?

		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT))
			synchronize_rcu_tasks();

One thing that might speed this up a bit (or might not) would be to
doe the schedule_on_each_cpu() from a delayed workqueue.  That way,
if any of the activity from schedule_on_each_cpu() involved a voluntary
context switch (from a cond_resched() or some such), then
synchronize_rcu_tasks() would get the benefit of that context switch.

You would need a flush_work() to wait for that delayed workqueue
as well, of course.

Not sure whether it is worth it, but figured I should pass it along.

>  		arch_ftrace_trampoline_free(ops);
> 
>  		if (ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_PER_CPU)
> @@ -5366,22 +5376,6 @@ void __weak arch_ftrace_update_trampoline(struct ftrace_ops *ops)
> 
>  static void ftrace_update_trampoline(struct ftrace_ops *ops)
>  {
> -
> -/*
> - * Currently there's no safe way to free a trampoline when the kernel
> - * is configured with PREEMPT. That is because a task could be preempted
> - * when it jumped to the trampoline, it may be preempted for a long time
> - * depending on the system load, and currently there's no way to know
> - * when it will be off the trampoline. If the trampoline is freed
> - * too early, when the task runs again, it will be executing on freed
> - * memory and crash.
> - */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> -	/* Currently, only non dynamic ops can have a trampoline */
> -	if (ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_DYNAMIC)
> -		return;
> -#endif
> -
>  	arch_ftrace_update_trampoline(ops);
>  }

Agreed, straightforward patch!

							Thanx, Paul