[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103145337.wk5mib253q74pfuz@treble>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:53:37 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kprobes: propagate error from arm_kprobe_ftrace()
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:33:33 +0100
> Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Improve error handling when arming ftrace-based kprobes. Specifically, if
> > we fail to arm a ftrace-based kprobe, register_kprobe()/enable_kprobe()
> > should report an error instead of success. Previously, this has lead to
> > confusing situations where register_kprobe() would return 0 indicating
> > success, but the kprobe would not be functional if ftrace registration
> > during the kprobe arming process had failed. We should therefore take any
> > errors returned by ftrace into account and propagate this error so that we
> > do not register/enable kprobes that cannot be armed. This can happen if,
> > for example, register_ftrace_function() finds an IPMODIFY conflict (since
> > kprobe_ftrace_ops has this flag set) and returns an error. Such a conflict
> > is possible since livepatches also set the IPMODIFY flag for their ftrace_ops.
> >
> > arm_all_kprobes() keeps its current behavior and attempts to arm all
> > kprobes. It returns the last encountered error and gives a warning if
> > not all kprobes could be armed.
> >
> > This patch is based on Petr Mladek's original patchset (patches 2 and 3)
> > back in 2015, which improved kprobes error handling, found here:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/26/452
> >
> > However, further work on this had been paused since then and the patches
> > were not upstreamed.
> >
> > Based-on-patches-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/kprobes.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> > index da2ccf142358..f4a094007cb5 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> > @@ -978,18 +978,27 @@ static int prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> > }
> >
> > /* Caller must lock kprobe_mutex */
> > -static void arm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
> > +static int arm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
> > {
> > - int ret;
> > + int ret = 0;
> >
> > ret = ftrace_set_filter_ip(&kprobe_ftrace_ops,
> > (unsigned long)p->addr, 0, 0);
> > - WARN(ret < 0, "Failed to arm kprobe-ftrace at %p (%d)\n", p->addr, ret);
> > - kprobe_ftrace_enabled++;
> > - if (kprobe_ftrace_enabled == 1) {
> > + if (WARN(ret < 0, "Failed to arm kprobe-ftrace at %p (%d)\n", p->addr, ret))
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (kprobe_ftrace_enabled == 0) {
> > ret = register_ftrace_function(&kprobe_ftrace_ops);
> > - WARN(ret < 0, "Failed to init kprobe-ftrace (%d)\n", ret);
> > + if (WARN(ret < 0, "Failed to init kprobe-ftrace (%d)\n", ret))
> > + goto err_ftrace;
> > }
> > +
> > + kprobe_ftrace_enabled++;
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > +err_ftrace:
> > + ftrace_set_filter_ip(&kprobe_ftrace_ops, (unsigned long)p->addr, 1, 0);
>
> Hmm, this could have a very nasty side effect. If you remove a function
> from the ops, and it was the last function, an empty ops means to trace
> *all* functions.
But this error path only runs when register_ftrace_function() fails, in
which case the ops aren't live anyway, right?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists