linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] perf/uprobe: Add uretprobe timer

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: <CAEf4BzZCzqOsk55E0b8i9y5zFuf8t=zwrjORnVaLGK0ZVgJTFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:43:52 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, clm@...a.com, 
	paulmck@...nel.org, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] perf/uprobe: Add uretprobe timer

+ bpf

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:07 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> In order to put a bound on the uretprobe_srcu critical section, add a
> timer to uprobe_task. Upon every RI added or removed the timer is
> pushed forward to now + 1s. If the timer were ever to fire, it would
> convert the SRCU 'reference' to a refcount reference if possible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/uprobes.h |    8 +++++
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c |   67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
> +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>  #include <linux/rbtree.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  #include <linux/wait.h>
> +#include <linux/timer.h>
>
>  struct vm_area_struct;
>  struct mm_struct;
> @@ -79,6 +80,10 @@ struct uprobe_task {
>         struct return_instance          *return_instances;
>         unsigned int                    depth;
>         unsigned int                    active_srcu_idx;
> +
> +       struct timer_list               ri_timer;
> +       struct callback_head            ri_task_work;
> +       struct task_struct              *task;
>  };
>
>  struct return_instance {
> @@ -86,7 +91,8 @@ struct return_instance {
>         unsigned long           func;
>         unsigned long           stack;          /* stack pointer */
>         unsigned long           orig_ret_vaddr; /* original return address */
> -       bool                    chained;        /* true, if instance is nested */
> +       u8                      chained;        /* true, if instance is nested */
> +       u8                      has_ref;

Why bool -> u8 switch? You don't touch chained, so why change its
type? And for has_ref you interchangeably use 0 and true for the same
field. Let's stick to bool as there is nothing wrong with it?

>         int                     srcu_idx;
>
>         struct return_instance  *next;          /* keep as stack */

[...]

> @@ -1822,13 +1864,20 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct
>                         return -ENOMEM;
>
>                 *n = *o;
> -               __srcu_clone_read_lock(&uretprobes_srcu, n->srcu_idx);
> +               if (n->uprobe) {
> +                       if (n->has_ref)
> +                               get_uprobe(n->uprobe);
> +                       else
> +                               __srcu_clone_read_lock(&uretprobes_srcu, n->srcu_idx);
> +               }
>                 n->next = NULL;
>
>                 *p = n;
>                 p = &n->next;
>                 n_utask->depth++;
>         }
> +       if (n_utask->return_instances)
> +               mod_timer(&n_utask->ri_timer, jiffies + HZ);

let's add #define for HZ, so it's adjusted in just one place (instead
of 3 as it is right now)

Also, we can have up to 64 levels of uretprobe nesting, so,
technically, the user can cause a delay of 64 seconds in total. Maybe
let's use something smaller than a full second? After all, if the
user-space function has high latency, then this refcount congestion is
much less of a problem. I'd set it to something like 50-100 ms for
starters.

>
>         return 0;
>  }
> @@ -1967,6 +2016,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct upr
>
>         ri->srcu_idx = __srcu_read_lock(&uretprobes_srcu);
>         ri->uprobe = uprobe;
> +       ri->has_ref = 0;
>         ri->func = instruction_pointer(regs);
>         ri->stack = user_stack_pointer(regs);
>         ri->orig_ret_vaddr = orig_ret_vaddr;
> @@ -1976,6 +2026,8 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct upr
>         ri->next = utask->return_instances;
>         utask->return_instances = ri;
>
> +       mod_timer(&utask->ri_timer, jiffies + HZ);
> +
>         return;
>
>  err_mem:
> @@ -2204,6 +2256,9 @@ handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_ins
>         struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
>         struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
>
> +       if (!uprobe)
> +               return;
> +
>         guard(srcu)(&uprobes_srcu);
>
>         for_each_consumer_rcu(uc, uprobe->consumers) {
> @@ -2250,8 +2305,10 @@ static void handle_trampoline(struct pt_
>
>                 instruction_pointer_set(regs, ri->orig_ret_vaddr);
>                 do {
> -                       if (valid)
> +                       if (valid) {
>                                 handle_uretprobe_chain(ri, regs);
> +                               mod_timer(&utask->ri_timer, jiffies + HZ);
> +                       }
>                         ri = free_ret_instance(ri);
>                         utask->depth--;
>                 } while (ri != next);
>
>