[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhUvO4lHn-xh3jDm@krava>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:06:19 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return
probe
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:22:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/08, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:02:30PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > And what should sys_uretprobe() do if it is not called from the trampoline?
> > > I'd prefer force_sig(SIGILL) to punish the abuser ;) OK, OK, EINVAL.
> >
> > so the similar behaviour with int3 ends up with immediate SIGTRAP
> > and not invoking pending uretprobe consumers, like:
> >
> > - setup uretprobe for foo
> > - foo() {
> > executes int 3 -> sends SIGTRAP
> > }
> >
> > because the int3 handler checks if it got executed from the uretprobe's
> > trampoline.
>
> ... or the task has uprobe at this address
>
> > if not it treats that int3 as regular trap
>
> Yes this mimics the "default" behaviour without uprobes/uretprobes
>
> > so I think we should mimic int3 behaviour and:
> >
> > - setup uretprobe for foo
> > - foo() {
> > uretprobe_syscall -> check if we got executed from uretprobe's
> > trampoline and send SIGILL if that's not the case
>
> Agreed,
>
> > I think it's better to have the offending process killed right away,
> > rather than having more undefined behaviour, waiting for final 'ret'
> > instruction that jumps to uretprobe trampoline and causes SIGILL
>
> Agreed. In fact I think it should be also killed if copy_to/from_user()
> fails by the same reason.
+1 makes sense
jirka
>
> Oleg.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists