[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191202233531.GO17234@google.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:35:31 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] kprobes: Lock rcu_read_lock() while searching kprobe
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 07:34:53AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:08:54 -0500
> Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:32:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > Anders reported that the lockdep warns that suspicious
> > > RCU list usage in register_kprobe() (detected by
> > > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST.) This is because get_kprobe()
> > > access kprobe_table[] by hlist_for_each_entry_rcu()
> > > without rcu_read_lock.
> > >
> > > If we call get_kprobe() from the breakpoint handler context,
> > > it is run with preempt disabled, so this is not a problem.
> > > But in other cases, instead of rcu_read_lock(), we locks
> > > kprobe_mutex so that the kprobe_table[] is not updated.
> > > So, current code is safe, but still not good from the view
> > > point of RCU.
> > >
> > > Let's lock the rcu_read_lock() around get_kprobe() and
> > > ensure kprobe_mutex is locked at those points.
> > >
> > > Note that we can safely unlock rcu_read_lock() soon after
> > > accessing the list, because we are sure the found kprobe has
> > > never gone before unlocking kprobe_mutex. Unless locking
> > > kprobe_mutex, caller must hold rcu_read_lock() until it
> > > finished operations on that kprobe.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> >
> > Instead of this, can you not just pass the lockdep_is_held() expression as
> > the last argument to list_for_each_entry_rcu() to silence the warning? Then
> > it will be a simpler patch.
>
> Ah, I see. That is more natural to silence the warning.
Np, and on such fix, my:
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
thanks,
- Joel
>
> Thank you!
>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists