linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory failure

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]

Date:   Sat, 30 Jan 2021 23:30:18 +1100
From:   Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to
 memory failure



On 28/01/2021 09:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> The list of tracepoint callbacks is managed by an array that is protected
> by RCU. To update this array, a new array is allocated, the updates are
> copied over to the new array, and then the list of functions for the
> tracepoint is switched over to the new array. After a completion of an RCU
> grace period, the old array is freed.
> 
> This process happens for both adding a callback as well as removing one.
> But on removing a callback, if the new array fails to be allocated, the
> callback is not removed, and may be used after it is freed by the clients
> of the tracepoint.
> 
> The handling of a failed allocation for removing an event can break use
> cases as the error report is not propagated up to the original callers. To
> make matters worse, there's some paths that can not handle error cases.
> 
> Instead of allocating a new array for removing a tracepoint, allocate twice
> the needed size when adding tracepoints to the array. On removing, use the
> second half of the allocated array. This removes the need to allocate memory
> for removing a tracepoint, as the allocation for removals will already have
> been done.
> 
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201115055256.65625-1-mmullins@mmlx.us
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201116175107.02db396d@gandalf.local.home
> Link: https://lkml.kennel.org/r/20201118093405.7a6d2290@gandalf.local.home
> 
> Reported-by: Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>


I still need the following chunk (same "if (it_func_ptr)" as in the v2's 
reply) in order to stop crashes:



diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint.h b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
index 82eba6a05a1c..b7cf7a5a4f43 100644
--- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
+++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
@@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ static inline struct tracepoint 
*tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
                                                                         \
                 it_func_ptr =                                           \
 
rcu_dereference_raw((&__tracepoint_##_name)->funcs); \
+               if (it_func_ptr) \
                 do {                                                    \
                         it_func = (it_func_ptr)->func;                  \
                         __data = (it_func_ptr)->data;                   \




-- 
Alexey