linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore)

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: <20180807113622.GC19831@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:36:23 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, liu.song.a23@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, alexis.berlemont@...il.com,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference
 count (semaphore)

Hi Ravi,

On 08/06, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> >> +static int delayed_uprobe_add(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct delayed_uprobe *du;
> >> +
> >> +	if (delayed_uprobe_check(uprobe, mm))
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +
> >> +	du  = kzalloc(sizeof(*du), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!du)
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> +	du->uprobe = uprobe;
> >> +	du->mm = mm;
> >
> > I am surprised I didn't notice this before...
> >
> > So
> > 	du->mm = mm;
> >
> > is fine, mm can't go away, uprobe_clear_state() does delayed_uprobe_remove(NULL,mm).
> >
> > But
> > 	du->uprobe = uprobe;
> >
> > doesn't look right, uprobe can go away and it can be freed, its memory can be reused.
> > We can't rely on remove_breakpoint(),
>
>
> I'm sorry. I didn't get this. How can uprobe go away without calling
>     uprobe_unregister()
>     -> rergister_for_each_vma()
>        -> remove_breakpoint()
> And remove_breakpoint() will get called

assuming that _unregister() will find the same vma with the probed insn. But
as I said, the application can munmap the probed page/vma.

No?

> > Also. delayed_uprobe_add() should check the list and avoid duplicates. Otherwise the
> > trivial
> >
> > 	for (;;)
> > 		munmap(mmap(uprobed_file));
> >
> > will eat the memory until uprobe is unregistered.
>
>
> I'm already calling delayed_uprobe_check(uprobe, mm) from delayed_uprobe_add().

Oops ;)

Oleg.