linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: don't fail kmalloc while releasing raw

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1368007646.46749.1605562481450.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:34:41 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: don't fail kmalloc while releasing raw_tp

----- On Nov 16, 2020, at 4:02 PM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:44:37 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
>> If you use a stub function, it shouldn't affect anything. And the worse
>> that would happen is that you have a slight overhead of calling the stub
>> until you can properly remove the callback.
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> (haven't compiled it yet, I'm about to though).
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/tracepoint.c b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> index 3f659f855074..8eab40f9d388 100644
> --- a/kernel/tracepoint.c
> +++ b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> @@ -53,10 +53,16 @@ struct tp_probes {
> 	struct tracepoint_func probes[];
> };
> 
> -static inline void *allocate_probes(int count)
> +/* Called in removal of a func but failed to allocate a new tp_funcs */
> +static void tp_stub_func(void)

I'm still not sure whether it's OK to call a (void) function with arguments.

> +{
> +	return;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *allocate_probes(int count, gfp_t extra_flags)
> {
> 	struct tp_probes *p  = kmalloc(struct_size(p, probes, count),
> -				       GFP_KERNEL);
> +				       GFP_KERNEL | extra_flags);
> 	return p == NULL ? NULL : p->probes;
> }
> 
> @@ -150,7 +156,7 @@ func_add(struct tracepoint_func **funcs, struct
> tracepoint_func *tp_func,
> 		}
> 	}
> 	/* + 2 : one for new probe, one for NULL func */
> -	new = allocate_probes(nr_probes + 2);
> +	new = allocate_probes(nr_probes + 2, 0);
> 	if (new == NULL)
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 	if (old) {
> @@ -188,8 +194,9 @@ static void *func_remove(struct tracepoint_func **funcs,
> 	/* (N -> M), (N > 1, M >= 0) probes */
> 	if (tp_func->func) {
> 		for (nr_probes = 0; old[nr_probes].func; nr_probes++) {
> -			if (old[nr_probes].func == tp_func->func &&
> -			     old[nr_probes].data == tp_func->data)
> +			if ((old[nr_probes].func == tp_func->func &&
> +			     old[nr_probes].data == tp_func->data) ||
> +			    old[nr_probes].func == tp_stub_func)
> 				nr_del++;
> 		}
> 	}
> @@ -207,15 +214,20 @@ static void *func_remove(struct tracepoint_func **funcs,
> 		int j = 0;
> 		/* N -> M, (N > 1, M > 0) */
> 		/* + 1 for NULL */
> -		new = allocate_probes(nr_probes - nr_del + 1);
> -		if (new == NULL)
> -			return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> -		for (i = 0; old[i].func; i++)
> -			if (old[i].func != tp_func->func
> -					|| old[i].data != tp_func->data)
> -				new[j++] = old[i];
> -		new[nr_probes - nr_del].func = NULL;
> -		*funcs = new;
> +		new = allocate_probes(nr_probes - nr_del + 1, __GFP_NOFAIL);
> +		if (new) {
> +			for (i = 0; old[i].func; i++)
> +				if (old[i].func != tp_func->func
> +				    || old[i].data != tp_func->data)

as you point out in your reply, skip tp_stub_func here too.

> +					new[j++] = old[i];
> +			new[nr_probes - nr_del].func = NULL;
> +		} else {
> +			for (i = 0; old[i].func; i++)
> +				if (old[i].func == tp_func->func &&
> +				    old[i].data == tp_func->data)
> +					old[i].func = tp_stub_func;

I think you'll want a WRITE_ONCE(old[i].func, tp_stub_func) here, matched
with a READ_ONCE() in __DO_TRACE. This introduces a new situation where the
func pointer can be updated and loaded concurrently.

> +		}
> +		*funcs = old;

The line above seems wrong for the successful allocate_probe case. You will likely
want *funcs = new on successful allocation, and *funcs = old for the failure case.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 	}
> 	debug_print_probes(*funcs);
> 	return old;
> @@ -300,6 +312,10 @@ static int tracepoint_remove_func(struct tracepoint *tp,
> 		return PTR_ERR(old);
> 	}
> 
> +	if (tp_funcs == old)
> +		/* Failed allocating new tp_funcs, replaced func with stub */
> +		return 0;
> +
> 	if (!tp_funcs) {
> 		/* Removed last function */
>  		if (tp->unregfunc && static_key_enabled(&tp->key))

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com