linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/5] bpf: trampoline: support FTRACE_OPS_FL_SHARE

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: <20220706153843.37584b5b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 15:38:43 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <andrii@...nel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>,
        <jolsa@...nel.org>, <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/5] bpf: trampoline: support
 FTRACE_OPS_FL_SHARE_IPMODIFY

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 12:37:06 -0700
Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:


> --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,44 @@ static struct hlist_head trampoline_table[TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE];
>  /* serializes access to trampoline_table */
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(trampoline_mutex);
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
> +static int bpf_trampoline_update(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, bool lock_direct_mutex);
> +
> +static int bpf_tramp_ftrace_ops_func(struct ftrace_ops *ops, enum ftrace_ops_cmd cmd)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_trampoline *tr = ops->private;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The normal locking order is
> +	 *    tr->mutex => direct_mutex (ftrace.c) => ftrace_lock (ftrace.c)
> +	 *
> +	 * This is called from prepare_direct_functions_for_ipmodify, with
> +	 * direct_mutex locked. Use mutex_trylock() to avoid dead lock.
> +	 * Also, bpf_trampoline_update here should not lock direct_mutex.
> +	 */
> +	if (!mutex_trylock(&tr->mutex))

Can you comment here that returning -EAGAIN will not cause this to repeat.
That it will change things where the next try will not return -EGAIN?

> +		return -EAGAIN;
> +
> +	switch (cmd) {
> +	case FTRACE_OPS_CMD_ENABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY:
> +		tr->indirect_call = true;
> +		ret = bpf_trampoline_update(tr, false /* lock_direct_mutex */);
> +		break;
> +	case FTRACE_OPS_CMD_DISABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY:
> +		tr->indirect_call = false;
> +		tr->fops->flags &= ~FTRACE_OPS_FL_SHARE_IPMODIFY;
> +		ret = bpf_trampoline_update(tr, false /* lock_direct_mutex */);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		break;
> +	};
> +	mutex_unlock(&tr->mutex);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> 


> @@ -330,7 +387,7 @@ static struct bpf_tramp_image *bpf_tramp_image_alloc(u64 key, u32 idx)
>  	return ERR_PTR(err);
>  }
>  
> -static int bpf_trampoline_update(struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
> +static int bpf_trampoline_update(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, bool lock_direct_mutex)
>  {
>  	struct bpf_tramp_image *im;
>  	struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks;
> @@ -363,20 +420,45 @@ static int bpf_trampoline_update(struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
>  	if (ip_arg)
>  		flags |= BPF_TRAMP_F_IP_ARG;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
> +again:
> +	if (tr->indirect_call)
> +		flags |= BPF_TRAMP_F_ORIG_STACK;
> +#endif
> +
>  	err = arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(im, im->image, im->image + PAGE_SIZE,
>  					  &tr->func.model, flags, tlinks,
>  					  tr->func.addr);
>  	if (err < 0)
>  		goto out;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
> +	if (tr->indirect_call)
> +		tr->fops->flags |= FTRACE_OPS_FL_SHARE_IPMODIFY;
> +#endif
> +
>  	WARN_ON(tr->cur_image && tr->selector == 0);
>  	WARN_ON(!tr->cur_image && tr->selector);
>  	if (tr->cur_image)
>  		/* progs already running at this address */
> -		err = modify_fentry(tr, tr->cur_image->image, im->image);
> +		err = modify_fentry(tr, tr->cur_image->image, im->image, lock_direct_mutex);
>  	else
>  		/* first time registering */
>  		err = register_fentry(tr, im->image);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
> +	if (err == -EAGAIN) {
> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tr->indirect_call))
> +			goto out;
> +		/* should only retry on the first register */
> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tr->cur_image))
> +			goto out;
> +		tr->indirect_call = true;
> +		tr->fops->func = NULL;
> +		tr->fops->trampoline = 0;
> +		goto again;

I'm assuming that the above will prevent a return of -EAGAIN again. As if
it can, then this could turn into a dead lock.

Can you please comment that?

Thanks,

-- Steve

> +	}
> +#endif
>  	if (err)
>  		goto out;
>  	if (tr->cur_image)
> @@ -460,7 +542,7 @@ int bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_trampoline
>  
>  	hlist_add_head(&link->tramp_hlist, &tr->progs_hlist[kind]);
>  	tr->progs_cnt[kind]++;
> -	err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr);
> +	err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr, true /* lock_direct_mutex */);
>  	if (err) {
>  		hlist_del_init(&link->tramp_hlist);
>  		tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> @@ -487,7 +569,7 @@ int bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_trampolin
>  	}
>  	hlist_del_init(&link->tramp_hlist);
>  	tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> -	err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr);
> +	err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr, true /* lock_direct_mutex */);
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&tr->mutex);
>  	return err;
> @@ -535,6 +617,7 @@ void bpf_trampoline_put(struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
>  	 * multiple rcu callbacks.
>  	 */
>  	hlist_del(&tr->hlist);
> +	kfree(tr->fops);
>  	kfree(tr);
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&trampoline_mutex);