linux-kernel - Re: [RFC bpf-next 01/10] uprobe: Add session callbacks to uprobe

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]

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 19:56:19 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 01/10] uprobe: Add session callbacks to
 uprobe_consumer

On 06/05, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> so any such
> limitations will cause problems, issue reports, investigation, etc.

Agreed...

> As one possible solution, what if we do
>
> struct return_instance {
>     ...
>     u64 session_cookies[];
> };
>
> and allocate sizeof(struct return_instance) + 8 *
> <num-of-session-consumers> and then at runtime pass
> &session_cookies[i] as data pointer to session-aware callbacks?

I too thought about this, but I guess it is not that simple.

Just for example. Suppose we have 2 session-consumers C1 and C2.
What if uprobe_unregister(C1) comes before the probed function
returns?

We need something like map_cookie_to_consumer().

> > +       /* The handler_session callback return value controls execution of
> > +        * the return uprobe and ret_handler_session callback.
> > +        *  0 on success
> > +        *  1 on failure, DO NOT install/execute the return uprobe
> > +        *    console warning for anything else
> > +        */
> > +       int (*handler_session)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs,
> > +                              unsigned long *data);
> > +       int (*ret_handler_session)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, unsigned long func,
> > +                                  struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long *data);
> > +
>
> We should try to avoid an alternative set of callbacks, IMO. Let's
> extend existing ones with `unsigned long *data`,

Oh yes, agreed.

And the comment about the return value looks confusing too. I mean, the
logic doesn't differ from the ret-code from ->handler().

"DO NOT install/execute the return uprobe" is not true if another
non-session-consumer returns 0.

Oleg.