| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 00:20:18 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/mm: Sync all vmalloc mappings before
text_poke()
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 22:26:55 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> The tracers just have to make sure they perform their vmalloc'd memory
> allocation before registering the tracepoint which can touch it, else they
> need to issue vmalloc_sync_mappings() on their own before making the
> newly allocated memory observable by instrumentation.
What gets me is that I added the patch below (which adds a
vmalloc_sync_mappings() just after the alloc_percpu()), but I also recorded
all instances of vmalloc() with a stackdump, and I get this:
colord-1673 [002] .... 84.764804: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
colord-1673 [002] .... 84.764807: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> module_alloc+0x7e/0xd0
=> bpf_jit_binary_alloc+0x70/0x110
=> bpf_int_jit_compile+0x139/0x40a
=> bpf_prog_select_runtime+0xa3/0x120
=> bpf_prepare_filter+0x533/0x5a0
=> sk_attach_filter+0x13/0x50
=> sock_setsockopt+0xd2f/0xf90
=> __sys_setsockopt+0x18a/0x1a0
=> __x64_sys_setsockopt+0x20/0x30
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
[ the above is from before the tracing started ]
trace-cmd-1687 [002] .... 103.908850: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1687 [002] .... 103.908856: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0x23d/0x2b0
=> pid_write.isra.62+0xd1/0x2f0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.088950: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.088954: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0x23d/0x2b0
=> pid_write.isra.62+0xd1/0x2f0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.089666: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.089669: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0xc1/0x2b0
=> pid_write.isra.62+0xd1/0x2f0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.098920: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.098924: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0xc1/0x2b0
=> pid_write.isra.62+0xd1/0x2f0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.114518: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.114520: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0xc1/0x2b0
=> pid_write.isra.62+0xd1/0x2f0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.130705: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1697 [003] .... 104.130707: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0x23d/0x2b0
=> event_pid_write.isra.30+0x21b/0x3b0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
trace-cmd-1687 [001] .... 106.000510: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
trace-cmd-1687 [001] .... 106.000514: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> vzalloc+0x48/0x50
=> trace_pid_write+0x23d/0x2b0
=> pid_write.isra.62+0xd1/0x2f0
=> vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b0
=> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
=> do_syscall_64+0x60/0x230
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
=> 0
The above is the calls to adding pids to set_event_pid. (I see I should
probably make that code a bit more efficient, it calls the vmalloc code a
bit too much).
But what is missing, is the call to vmalloc from alloc_percpu(). In fact, I
put in printks in the vmalloc() that's in alloc_percpu() and it doesn't
trigger from the tracing code, and it does show up in my trace from other
areas of the kernel:
kworker/1:3-204 [001] .... 42.888340: __vmalloc_node_range+0x5/0x2c0: vmalloc called here
kworker/1:3-204 [001] .... 42.888342: <stack trace>
=> __ftrace_trace_stack+0x161/0x1a0
=> __vmalloc_node_range+0x4d/0x2c0
=> __vmalloc+0x30/0x40
=> pcpu_create_chunk+0x77/0x220
=> pcpu_balance_workfn+0x407/0x650
=> process_one_work+0x25e/0x5c0
=> worker_thread+0x30/0x380
=> kthread+0x139/0x160
=> ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
So I'm still not 100% sure why the percpu data is causing a problem?
-- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
index 8d2b98812625..10e4970a150c 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
@@ -8486,6 +8486,7 @@ allocate_trace_buffer(struct trace_array *tr, struct array_buffer *buf, int size
return -ENOMEM;
buf->data = alloc_percpu(struct trace_array_cpu);
+ vmalloc_sync_mappings();
if (!buf->data) {
ring_buffer_free(buf->buffer);
buf->buffer = NULL;
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index 9a8227afa073..489cf0620edc 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -2543,6 +2543,8 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
void *addr;
unsigned long real_size = size;
+ trace_printk("vmalloc called here\n");
+ trace_dump_stack(0);
size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
if (!size || (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > totalram_pages())
goto fail;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists