linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond

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]

Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 09:56:49 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "joe.lawrence@...hat.com" <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched,livepatch: call klp_try_switch_task in __cond_resched

On Mon 2022-05-09 16:22:11, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 9, 2022, at 8:07 AM, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat 2022-05-07 10:46:28, Song Liu wrote:
> >> Busy kernel threads may block the transition of livepatch. Call
> >> klp_try_switch_task from __cond_resched to make the transition easier.
> > 
> > Do you have some numbers how this speeds up the transition
> > and how it slows down the scheduler, please?
> 
> We don’t have number on how much this would slow down the scheduler. 
> For the transition, we see cases where the transition cannot finish
> with in 60 seconds (how much "kpatch load" waits by default). 

60s might be too low limit, see below.

> > cond_resched() is typically called in cycles with many interactions
> > where the task might spend a lot of time. There are two possibilities.
> > cond_resched() is called in:
> > 
> >   + livepatched function
> > 
> >     In this case, klp_try_switch_task(current) will always fail.
> >     And it will non-necessarily slow down every iteration by
> >     checking the very same stack.
> > 
> > 
> >   + non-livepatched function
> > 
> >     In this case, the transition will succeed on the first attempt.
> >     OK, but it would succeed also without that patch. The task would
> >     most likely sleep in this cond_resched() so that it might
> >     be successfully transitioned on the next occasion.
> 
> We are in the non-live patched case. But the transition didn’t happen
> in time, because the kernel thread doesn’t go to sleep. While there is
> clearly something weird with this thread, we think live patch should 
> work because the thread does call cond_resched from time to time. 

I guess that it goes to sleep. Otherwise it would trigger soft lockup
report if you have the watchdog enabled.

IMHO, the problem is that klp_transition_work_fn() tries the
transition "only" once per second, see

void klp_try_complete_transition(void)
{
[...]
		schedule_delayed_work(&klp_transition_work,
				      round_jiffies_relative(HZ));
[...]
}

It means that there are "only" 60 attempts to migrate the busy process.
It fails when the process is in the running state or sleeping in a
livepatched function. There is a _non-zero_ chance of a bad luck.

It would be great to measure how long it will take to complete
the transition if you remove the limit 60s.


Anyway, the limit 60s looks like a bad idea to me. It is too low.
For example, we do not use any limit at all in SUSE products.
And the only report was that some thread from a 3rd party
module could not be migrated. It was stuck with a livepatched
function on the stack. The kthread had really problematic
design. I am afraid that even this patch would not help
in that case.


Now, back to the limit. There are basically two problems when
the transition takes too long:

    + It blocks another transition. But the frequency of new
      livepatches it typically counted in days or even weeks.


    + It means that a process is running the buggy/vulnerable
      code longer time. But few hours should be acceptable
      given how long it takes to prepare the livepatch.

      Also it looks better to have 99.9% of processes running
      the fixed code that revert the fix just because a single
      process needs longer time to get transitioned.


I could imagine that there really is a process that is almost
impossible to livepatch. It might get worse on NO_HZ system.
The question is it happens in the real life.

I would personally start with prolonging or removing the limit.

Best Regards,
Petr