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]
Message-ID: <20240312210233.1941599-4-andrii@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:02:33 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
To: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	mhiramat@...nel.org
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] uprobes: add speculative lockless system-wide uprobe filter check

It's very common with BPF-based uprobe/uretprobe use cases to have
a system-wide (not PID specific) probes used. In this case uprobe's
trace_uprobe_filter->nr_systemwide counter is bumped at registration
time, and actual filtering is short circuited at the time when
uprobe/uretprobe is triggered.

This is a great optimization, and the only issue with it is that to even
get to checking this counter uprobe subsystem is taking
read-side trace_uprobe_filter->rwlock. This is actually noticeable in
profiles and is just another point of contention when uprobe is
triggered on multiple CPUs simultaneously.

This patch adds a speculative check before grabbing that rwlock. If
nr_systemwide is non-zero, lock is skipped and event is passed through.
>From examining existing logic it looks correct and safe to do. If
nr_systemwide is being modified under rwlock in parallel, we have to
consider basically just one important race condition: the case when
nr_systemwide is dropped from one to zero (from
trace_uprobe_filter_remove()) under filter->rwlock, but
uprobe_perf_filter() raced and saw it as >0.

In this case, we'll proceed with uprobe/uretprobe execution, while
uprobe_perf_close() and uprobe_apply() will be blocked on trying to grab
uprobe->register_rwsem as a writer. It will be blocked because
uprobe_dispatcher() (and, similarly, uretprobe_dispatcher()) runs with
uprobe->register_rwsem taken as a reader. So there is no real race
besides uprobe/uretprobe might execute one last time before it's
removed, which is fine because from user space perspective
uprobe/uretprobe hasn't been yet deactivated.

In case we speculatively read nr_systemwide as zero, while it was
incremented in parallel, we'll proceed to grabbing filter->rwlock and
re-doing the check, this time in lock-protected and non-racy way.

As such, it looks safe to do a quick short circuiting check and save
some performance in a very common system-wide case, not sacrificing hot
path performance due to much rarer possibility of registration or
unregistration of uprobes.

Again, confirming with BPF selftests's based benchmarks.

BEFORE (based on changes in previous patch)
===========================================
uprobe-nop     :    2.732 ± 0.022M/s
uprobe-push    :    2.621 ± 0.016M/s
uprobe-ret     :    1.105 ± 0.007M/s
uretprobe-nop  :    1.396 ± 0.007M/s
uretprobe-push :    1.347 ± 0.008M/s
uretprobe-ret  :    0.800 ± 0.006M/s

AFTER
=====
uprobe-nop     :    2.878 ± 0.017M/s (+5.5%, total +8.3%)
uprobe-push    :    2.753 ± 0.013M/s (+5.3%, total +10.2%)
uprobe-ret     :    1.142 ± 0.010M/s (+3.8%, total +3.8%)
uretprobe-nop  :    1.444 ± 0.008M/s (+3.5%, total +6.5%)
uretprobe-push :    1.410 ± 0.010M/s (+4.8%, total +7.1%)
uretprobe-ret  :    0.816 ± 0.002M/s (+2.0%, total +3.9%)

In the above, first percentage value is based on top of previous patch
(lazy uprobe buffer optimization), while the "total" percentage is
based on kernel without any of the changes in this patch set.

As can be seen, we get about 4% - 10% speed up, in total, with both lazy
uprobe buffer and speculative filter check optimizations.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
index f2875349d124..be28e6d0578e 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
@@ -1351,6 +1351,10 @@ static bool uprobe_perf_filter(struct uprobe_consumer *uc,
 	tu = container_of(uc, struct trace_uprobe, consumer);
 	filter = tu->tp.event->filter;
 
+	/* speculative check */
+	if (READ_ONCE(filter->nr_systemwide))
+		return true;
+
 	read_lock(&filter->rwlock);
 	ret = __uprobe_perf_filter(filter, mm);
 	read_unlock(&filter->rwlock);
-- 
2.43.0


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ