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: <20240715114107.GE14400@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:41:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
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

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:43:52PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> + 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?

sizeof(_Bool) is implementation defined. It is 1 for x86_64, but there
are platforms where it ends up begin 4 (some PowerPC ABIs among others.
I didn't want to grow this structure for no reason.

> >         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)

Can do I suppose.

> 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.

Before you know it we'll have a sysctl :/ But sure, we can do something
shorter.