linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:31:00 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Alexis Berlemont <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,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference
 count (semaphore)

Hi Oleg,

On 08/13/2018 05:20 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/13, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2018 01:27 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +static void delayed_uprobe_delete(struct delayed_uprobe *du)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       if (!du)
>>>> +               return;
>>> Do we really need this check?
>>
>> Not necessary though, but I would still like to keep it for a safety.
> 
> Heh. I tried to ignore all minor problems in this version, but now that Song
> mentioned this unnecessary check...
> 
> Personally I really dislike the checks like this one.
> 
> 	- It can confuse the reader who will try to understand the purpose
> 
> 	- it can hide a bug if delayed_uprobe_delete(du) is actually called
> 	  with du == NULL.
> 
> IMO, you should either remove it and let the kernel crash (to notice the
> problem), or turn it into
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON(!du))
> 		return;
> 
> which is self-documented and reports the problem without kernel crash.

Ok. I'll remove that check.

> 
>>>> +       rc_vma = find_ref_ctr_vma(uprobe, mm);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (rc_vma) {
>>>> +               rc_vaddr = offset_to_vaddr(rc_vma, uprobe->ref_ctr_offset);
>>>> +               ret = __update_ref_ctr(mm, rc_vaddr, is_register ? 1 : -1);
>>>> +
>>>> +               if (is_register)
>>>> +                       return ret;
>>>> +       }
>>> Mixing __update_ref_ctr() here and delayed_uprobe_add() in the same
>>> function is a little confusing (at least for me). How about we always use
>>> delayed uprobe for uprobe_mmap() and use non-delayed in other case(s)?
>>
>>
>> No. delayed_uprobe_add() is needed for uprobe_register() case to handle race
>> between uprobe_register() and process creation.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But damn, process creation (exec) is trivial. We could add a new uprobe_exec()
> hook and avoid delayed_uprobe_install() in uprobe_mmap().

I'm sorry. I didn't get this.

> 
> Afaics, the really problematic case is dlopen() which can race with _register()
> too, right?

dlopen() should internally use mmap() right? So what is the problem here? Can
you please elaborate.

Thanks,
Ravi