linux-kernel - [PATCH v2][for-next] tracing: Do not allocate buffer in trace_find_next

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200403113549.7c95dcf5@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:35:49 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2][for-next] tracing: Do not allocate buffer in
 trace_find_next_entry() in atomic


Changes since v1:

  I don't usually rebase my for-next branch, but its only a single patch,
  and Masami pointed out a silly mistake in the first one. That
  ftrace_dump() never initialized the temp_size value, and which caused the
  WARN_ON_ONCE() added to also trigger.

-- Steve


  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-trace.git
for-next

Head SHA1: 8e99cf91b99bb30e16727f10ad6828741c0e992f


Steven Rostedt (VMware) (1):
      tracing: Do not allocate buffer in trace_find_next_entry() in atomic

----
 kernel/trace/trace.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---------------------------
commit 8e99cf91b99bb30e16727f10ad6828741c0e992f
Author: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Date:   Wed Apr 1 22:44:46 2020 -0400

    tracing: Do not allocate buffer in trace_find_next_entry() in atomic
    
    When dumping out the trace data in latency format, a check is made to peek
    at the next event to compare its timestamp to the current one, and if the
    delta is of a greater size, it will add a marker showing so. But to do this,
    it needs to save the current event otherwise peeking at the next event will
    remove the current event. To save the event, a temp buffer is used, and if
    the event is bigger than the temp buffer, the temp buffer is freed and a
    bigger buffer is allocated.
    
    This allocation is a problem when called in atomic context. The only way
    this gets called via atomic context is via ftrace_dump(). Thus, use a static
    buffer of 128 bytes (which covers most events), and if the event is bigger
    than that, simply return NULL. The callers of trace_find_next_entry() need
    to handle a NULL case, as that's what would happen if the allocation failed.
    
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200326091256.GR11705@shao2-debian
    
    Fixes: ff895103a84ab ("tracing: Save off entry when peeking at next entry")
    Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
    Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
index 6519b7afc499..8d2b98812625 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
@@ -3472,6 +3472,9 @@ __find_next_entry(struct trace_iterator *iter, int *ent_cpu,
 	return next;
 }
 
+#define STATIC_TEMP_BUF_SIZE	128
+static char static_temp_buf[STATIC_TEMP_BUF_SIZE];
+
 /* Find the next real entry, without updating the iterator itself */
 struct trace_entry *trace_find_next_entry(struct trace_iterator *iter,
 					  int *ent_cpu, u64 *ent_ts)
@@ -3480,13 +3483,26 @@ struct trace_entry *trace_find_next_entry(struct trace_iterator *iter,
 	int ent_size = iter->ent_size;
 	struct trace_entry *entry;
 
+	/*
+	 * If called from ftrace_dump(), then the iter->temp buffer
+	 * will be the static_temp_buf and not created from kmalloc.
+	 * If the entry size is greater than the buffer, we can
+	 * not save it. Just return NULL in that case. This is only
+	 * used to add markers when two consecutive events' time
+	 * stamps have a large delta. See trace_print_lat_context()
+	 */
+	if (iter->temp == static_temp_buf &&
+	    STATIC_TEMP_BUF_SIZE < ent_size)
+		return NULL;
+
 	/*
 	 * The __find_next_entry() may call peek_next_entry(), which may
 	 * call ring_buffer_peek() that may make the contents of iter->ent
 	 * undefined. Need to copy iter->ent now.
 	 */
 	if (iter->ent && iter->ent != iter->temp) {
-		if (!iter->temp || iter->temp_size < iter->ent_size) {
+		if ((!iter->temp || iter->temp_size < iter->ent_size) &&
+		    !WARN_ON_ONCE(iter->temp == static_temp_buf)) {
 			kfree(iter->temp);
 			iter->temp = kmalloc(iter->ent_size, GFP_KERNEL);
 			if (!iter->temp)
@@ -9203,6 +9219,9 @@ void ftrace_dump(enum ftrace_dump_mode oops_dump_mode)
 
 	/* Simulate the iterator */
 	trace_init_global_iter(&iter);
+	/* Can not use kmalloc for iter.temp */
+	iter.temp = static_temp_buf;
+	iter.temp_size = STATIC_TEMP_BUF_SIZE;
 
 	for_each_tracing_cpu(cpu) {
 		atomic_inc(&per_cpu_ptr(iter.array_buffer->data, cpu)->disabled);