linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] uprobes: add batched register/unregister APIs and per-CPU RW semaphore

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: <20240703075057.GK11386@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 09:50:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	mhiramat@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, clm@...a.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] uprobes: add batched register/unregister APIs
 and per-CPU RW semaphore

On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 04:56:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > Paul, isn't this the RCU flavour you created to deal with
> > !rcu_is_watching()? The flavour that never should have been created in
> > favour of just cleaning up the mess instead of making more.
> 
> My guess is that you are instead thinking of RCU Tasks Rude, which can
> be eliminated once all architectures get their entry/exit/deep-idle
> functions either inlined or marked noinstr.

Would it make sense to disable it for those architectures that have
already done this work?

> > > I will
> > > ultimately use it anyway to avoid uprobe taking unnecessary refcount
> > > and to protect uprobe->consumers iteration and uc->handler() calls,
> > > which could be sleepable, so would need rcu_read_lock_trace().
> > 
> > I don't think you need trace-rcu for that. SRCU would do nicely I think.
> 
> From a functional viewpoint, agreed.
> 
> However, in the past, the memory-barrier and array-indexing overhead
> of SRCU has made it a no-go for lightweight probes into fastpath code.
> And these cases were what motivated RCU Tasks Trace (as opposed to RCU
> Tasks Rude).

I'm thinking we're growing too many RCU flavours again :/ I suppose I'll
have to go read up on rcu/tasks.* and see what's what.

> The other rule for RCU Tasks Trace is that although readers are permitted
> to block, this blocking can be for no longer than a major page fault.
> If you need longer-term blocking, then you should instead use SRCU.

I think this would render it unsuitable for uprobes. The whole point of
having a sleepable handler is to be able to take faults.