linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] uprobes: document the usage of mm->mmap

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: <20240710151006.GB9228@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:10:07 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, clm@...a.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] uprobes: document the usage of mm->mmap_lock

On 07/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:00:45 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > The comment above uprobe_write_opcode() is wrong, unapply_uprobe() calls
> > it under mmap_read_lock() and this is correct.
> >
> > And it is completely unclear why register_for_each_vma() takes mmap_lock
> > for writing, add a comment to explain that mmap_write_lock() is needed to
> > avoid the following race:
> >
> > 	- A task T hits the bp installed by uprobe and calls
> > 	  find_active_uprobe()
> >
> > 	- uprobe_unregister() removes this uprobe/bp
> >
> > 	- T calls find_uprobe() which returns NULL
> >
> > 	- another uprobe_register() installs the bp at the same address
> >
> > 	- T calls is_trap_at_addr() which returns true
> >
> > 	- T returns to handle_swbp() and gets SIGTRAP.

...

> >  int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > @@ -1046,7 +1046,12 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> >
> >  		if (err && is_register)
> >  			goto free;
> > -
> > +		/*
> > +		 * We take mmap_lock for writing to avoid the race with
> > +		 * find_active_uprobe(), install_breakpoint() must not
> > +		 * make is_trap_at_addr() true right after find_uprobe()
> > +		 * returns NULL.
>
> Sorry, I couldn't catch the latter part. What is the relationship of
> taking the mmap_lock and install_breakpoint() and is_trap_at_addr() here?

Please the the changelog above, it tries to explain this race with more
details...

> You meant that find_active_uprobe() is using find_uprobe() which searchs
> uprobe form rbtree?

Yes,

> But it seems uprobe is already inserted to the rbtree
> in alloc_uprobe() so find_uprobe() will not return NULL here, right?

uprobe_register() -> alloc_uprobe() can come after
find_active_uprobe() -> find_uprobe() returns NULL.

Now, if uprobe_register() -> register_for_each_vma() used mmap_read_lock(), it
could do install_breakpoint() before find_active_uprobe() calls is_trap_at_addr().

In this case find_active_uprobe() returns with uprobe == NULL and is_swbp == 1,
handle_swbp() treat this case as the "normal" int3 without uprobe and do

	if (!uprobe) {
		if (is_swbp > 0) {
			/* No matching uprobe; signal SIGTRAP. */
			force_sig(SIGTRAP);

Does this answer your question?

Oleg.