linux-kernel - Re: BPF tracing trampoline synchronization between update/freeing and execution?

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: <20200106222907.yjoranutzjdersty@ast-mbp>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:29:08 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: BPF tracing trampoline synchronization between update/freeing
 and execution?

On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 05:39:30PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I was chatting with kpsingh about BPF trampolines, and I noticed that
> > it looks like BPF trampolines (as of current bpf-next/master) seem to
> > be missing synchronization between trampoline code updates and
> > trampoline execution. Or maybe I'm missing something?
> > 
> > If I understand correctly, trampolines are executed directly from the
> > fentry placeholders at the start of arbitrary kernel functions, so
> > they can run without any locks held. So for example, if task A starts
> > executing a trampoline on entry to sys_open(), then gets preempted in
> > the middle of the trampoline, and then task B quickly calls
> > BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT_OPEN twice, and then task A continues execution,
> > task A will end up executing the middle of newly-written machine code,
> > which can probably end up crashing the kernel somehow?
> > 
> > I think that at least to synchronize trampoline text freeing with
> > concurrent trampoline execution, it is necessary to do something
> > similar to what the livepatching code does with klp_check_stack(), and
> > then either use a callback from the scheduler to periodically re-check
> > tasks that were in the trampoline or let the trampoline tail-call into
> > a cleanup helper that is part of normal kernel text. And you'd
> > probably have to gate BPF trampolines on
> > CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE.
> 
> ftrace uses synchronize_rcu_tasks() to flip between trampolines iirc.

good catch and good suggestion. synchronize_rcu_tasks() is needed here too.