[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230513001757.75ae0d1b@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 00:17:57 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
Cc: Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ze Gao <zegao@...cent.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: reject blacklisted symbols in kprobe_multi to
avoid recursive trap
On Fri, 12 May 2023 07:29:02 -0700
Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com> wrote:
> A fprobe_blacklist might make sense indeed as fprobe and kprobe are
> quite different... Thanks for working on this.
Hmm, I think I see the problem:
fprobe_kprobe_handler() {
kprobe_busy_begin() {
preempt_disable() {
preempt_count_add() { <-- trace
fprobe_kprobe_handler() {
[ wash, rinse, repeat, CRASH!!! ]
Either the kprobe_busy_begin() needs to use preempt_disable_notrace()
versions, or fprobe_kprobe_handle() needs a
ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() call.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists