linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/bpf: Don't call bpf_overflow

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP045AoTAX7MOObBq0ubS0bSbu1MmrG4wEEiXpKV54W9up1zJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 06:38:27 -0700
From: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, khuey@...ehuey.com, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, robert@...llahan.org, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/bpf: Don't call bpf_overflow_handler() for tracing events

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 3:37 AM Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 12:55:17PM +0100, Joe Damato wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > Will do.
> > >
> > > - Kyle
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:34 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:37 AM Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:26 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > > > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:25 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 09:48:58AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 9:30 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 08:19:44AM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think this would probably work but stealing the bit seems far more
> > > > > > > > > > complicated than just gating on perf_event_is_tracing().
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > perf_event_is_tracing() is something like 3 branches. It is not a simple
> > > > > > > > > conditional. Combined with that re-load and the wrong return value, this
> > > > > > > > > all wants a cleanup.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Using that LSB works, it's just that the code aint pretty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe we could gate on !event->tp_event instead. Somebody who is more
> > > > > > > > familiar with this code than me should probably confirm that tp_event
> > > > > > > > being non-null and perf_event_is_tracing() being true are equivalent
> > > > > > > > though.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it looks like that's the case, AFAICS tracepoint/kprobe/uprobe events
> > > > > > > are the only ones having the tp_event pointer set, Masami?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fwiw I tried to run bpf selftests with that and it's fine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can't we do the most straightforward thing in this case?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > > > index ab6c4c942f79..cf4645b26c90 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > > > @@ -9707,7 +9707,8 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         ret = __perf_event_account_interrupt(event, throttle);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -       if (event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
> > > > > > +       if (event->prog && event->prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT &&
> > > > > > +           !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
> > > > > >                 return ret;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > jirka
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's effectively equivalent to calling perf_event_is_tracing()
> > > > > and would work too. Do you want to land that patch? It needs to go to
> > > > > 6.10 stable too.
> > > >
> > > > I'd appreciate it if you can just incorporate that into your patch and
> > > > resend it, thank you!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Kyle
> >
> > I probably missed the updated patch, but I am happy to test any new
> > versions, if needed, to ensure that the bug I hit is fixed.
> >
> > Kyle: please let me know if there's a patch you'd like me to test?
>
> Sorry for pinging this thread again; let me know if a fix was merged
> and I missed it?
>
> Otherwise, if it'd be helpful, I am happy to modify Kyle's patch to
> take Andrii's suggestion and resend, but I don't want to step on
> anyone's toes :)
>
> - Joe

Hi Joe,

You didn't miss anything. I've been remiss in getting back to this.
I'm currently away from home (and the machine I usually do kernel
development on), so if you want to run with this please do so.

Sorry for the inconvenience,

- Kyle