linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11 v2] ftrace: Add recording of functions that caused recursion

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: <20201102123721.4fcce2cb@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:37:21 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11 v2] ftrace: Add recording of functions that caused
 recursion

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:41:47 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:

> > +	i = atomic_read(&nr_records);
> > +	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > +	if (i < 0)
> > +		cmpxchg(&recursed_functions[index].ip, ip, 0);
> > +	else if (i <= index)
> > +		atomic_cmpxchg(&nr_records, i, index + 1);  
> 
> This looks weird. It would shift nr_records past the record added
> in this call. It might skip many slots that were zeroed when clearing.
> Also we do not know if our entry was not zeroed as well.

nr_records always holds the next position to write to.

	index = nr_records;
	recursed_functions[index].ip = ip;
	nr_records++;

Before clearing, we have:

	nr_records = -1;
	smp_mb();
	memset(recursed_functions, 0);
	smp_wmb();
	nr_records = 0;

When we enter this function:

	i = nr_records;
	smp_mb();
	if (i < 0)
		return;


Thus, we just stopped all new updates while clearing the records.

But what about if something is currently updating?

	i = nr_records;
	smp_mb();
	if (i < 0)
		cmpxchg(recursed_functions, ip, 0);

The above shows that if the current updating process notices that the
clearing happens, it will clear the function it added.

	else if (i <= index)
		cmpxchg(nr_records, i, index + 1);

This makes sure that nr_records only grows if it is greater or equal to
zero.

The only race that I see that can happen, is the one in the comment I
showed. And that is after enabling the recursed functions again after
clearing, one CPU could add a function while another CPU that just added
that same function could be just exiting this routine, notice that a
clearing of the array happened, and remove its function (which was the same
as the one just happened). So we get a "zero" in the array. If this
happens, it is likely that that function will recurse again and will be
added later.

-- Steve