linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] kprobes: Fix locking in recycle_rp

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: <20190227173846.397e2a66da37e0385d3fc383@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:38:46 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Srinivasa D S <srinivasa@...ibm.com>,
        Hien Nguyen <hien@...ibm.com>, David Valin <dvalin@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kprobes: Fix locking in recycle_rp_inst

Hi Jiri,

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:10:36 +0100
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:

> hi,
> David reported a crash related to return kprobes.
> The change below tries to explain it and fix it,
> but I'm sending it as RFC because I don't follow
> kprobes code that much, so I might have missed
> something.

Thank you for the report and patch!

> 
> thanks,
> jirka
> 
> 
> ---
> We can call recycle_rp_inst from both task and irq contexts,
> so we should use irqsave/irqrestore locking functions.
> 
> I wasn't able to hit this particular lockup, but I found it
> while checking on why return probe on _raw_spin_lock locks
> the system, reported by David by using bpftrace on simple
> script, like:
> 
>   kprobe:_raw_spin_lock
>   {
>       @time[tid] = nsecs;
>       @symb[tid] = arg0;
>   }
> 
>   kretprobe:_raw_spin_lock
>       / @time[tid] /
>   {
>       delete(@time[tid]);
>       delete(@symb[tid]);
>   }
> 
> or by perf tool:
> 
>   # perf probe -a _raw_spin_lock:%return
>   # perf record -e probe:_raw_spin_lock__return -a
> 
> The thing is that the _raw_spin_lock call in recycle_rp_inst,
> is the only one that return-probe-code-paths call, and it
> triggers another kprobe instance while already processing one
> and locks up on kretprobe_table_lock lock:
> 
>   #12 [ffff99c337403d28] queued_spin_lock_slowpath at ffffffff9712693b
>   #13 [ffff99c337403d28] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave at ffffffff9794c100
>   #14 [ffff99c337403d38] pre_handler_kretprobe at ffffffff9719435c
>   #15 [ffff99c337403d68] kprobe_ftrace_handler at ffffffff97059f12
>   #16 [ffff99c337403d98] ftrace_ops_assist_func at ffffffff971a0421
>   #17 [ffff99c337403dd8] handle_edge_irq at ffffffff97139f55
>   #18 [ffff99c337403df0] handle_edge_irq at ffffffff97139f55
>   #19 [ffff99c337403e58] _raw_spin_lock at ffffffff9794c111
>   #20 [ffff99c337403e88] _raw_spin_lock at ffffffff9794c115
>   #21 [ffff99c337403ea8] trampoline_handler at ffffffff97058a8f
>   #22 [ffff99c337403f00] kretprobe_trampoline at ffffffff970586d5
>   #23 [ffff99c337403fb0] handle_irq at ffffffff97027b1f
>   #24 [ffff99c337403fc0] do_IRQ at ffffffff97a01bc9
>   --- <IRQ stack> ---
>   #25 [ffffa5c3c1f9fb38] ret_from_intr at ffffffff97a0098f
>       [exception RIP: smp_call_function_many+460]
>       RIP: ffffffff9716685c  RSP: ffffa5c3c1f9fbe0  RFLAGS: 00000202
>       RAX: 0000000000000005  RBX: ffff99c337421c80  RCX: ffff99c337566260
>       RDX: 0000000000000001  RSI: 0000000000000000  RDI: ffff99c337421c88
>       RBP: ffff99c337421c88   R8: 0000000000000001   R9: ffffffff98352940
>       R10: ffff99c33703c910  R11: ffffffff9794c110  R12: ffffffff97055680
>       R13: 0000000000000000  R14: 0000000000000001  R15: 0000000000000040
>       ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffde  CS: 0010  SS: 0018
>   #26 [ffffa5c3c1f9fc20] on_each_cpu at ffffffff97166918
>   #27 [ffffa5c3c1f9fc40] ftrace_replace_code at ffffffff97055a34
>   #28 [ffffa5c3c1f9fc88] ftrace_modify_all_code at ffffffff971a3552
>   #29 [ffffa5c3c1f9fca8] arch_ftrace_update_code at ffffffff97055a6c
>   #30 [ffffa5c3c1f9fcb0] ftrace_run_update_code at ffffffff971a3683
>   #31 [ffffa5c3c1f9fcc0] ftrace_startup at ffffffff971a6638
>   #32 [ffffa5c3c1f9fce8] register_ftrace_function at ffffffff971a66a0
> 
> When we switch it to raw_spin_lock_irqsave the return probe
> on _raw_spin_lock starts working.

Yes, there can be a race between probes and probe on irq handler.

kretprobe_hash_lock()/kretprobe_hash_unlock() are safe because
those disables irqs. Only recycle_rp_inst() has this problem.

Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>

And this is one of the oldest bug in kprobe.

commit ef53d9c5e4da ("kprobes: improve kretprobe scalability with hashed locking")

introduced the spin_lock(&rp->lock) in recycle_rp_inst() but forgot to disable irqs.
And 

commit c9becf58d935 ("[PATCH] kretprobe: kretprobe-booster")

introduced assembly-based trampoline which didn't disable irq.

Could you add Cc:stable to this patch too?

Thank you!!

> 
> Reported-by: David Valin <dvalin@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index c83e54727131..c82056b354cc 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -1154,9 +1154,11 @@ void recycle_rp_inst(struct kretprobe_instance *ri,
>  	hlist_del(&ri->hlist);
>  	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&ri->hlist);
>  	if (likely(rp)) {
> -		raw_spin_lock(&rp->lock);
> +		unsigned long flags;
> +
> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rp->lock, flags);
>  		hlist_add_head(&ri->hlist, &rp->free_instances);
> -		raw_spin_unlock(&rp->lock);
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rp->lock, flags);
>  	} else
>  		/* Unregistering */
>  		hlist_add_head(&ri->hlist, head);
> -- 
> 2.17.2
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>