linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 1/7] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

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: <20240913115228.GE19305@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 13:52:28 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/7] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

On 09/09, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> @@ -37,13 +37,16 @@ struct uprobe_consumer {
>  	 * for the current process. If filter() is omitted or returns true,
>  	 * UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE is effectively ignored.
>  	 */
> -	int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs);
> +	int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs, __u64 *data);
>  	int (*ret_handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self,
>  				unsigned long func,
> -				struct pt_regs *regs);
> +				struct pt_regs *regs, __u64 *data);

And... I won't insist, but I'd suggest to do this in a separate patch
which should also update the current users in bpf_trace.c, trace_uprobe.c
and bpf_testmod.c.

Then it would be easier to review the next "functional" change. But this
is minor, feel free to ignore.


Finally, imo this documentation in handler_chain()

		/*
		 * The handler can return following values:
		 * 0 - execute ret_handler (if it's defined)
		 * 1 - remove uprobe
		 * 2 - do nothing (ignore ret_handler)
		 */

should be moved to uprobes.h and explain UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE/IGNORE there.

And note that "remove uprobe" is misleading, it should say something
like "remove the breakpoint from current->mm".

Oleg.