| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZaZGE7Kb+AZkN0eTH+0ny-_0WUxKT7ydDzAfEwP8cKVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:22:09 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/perf/core 2/2] uprobes: SRCU-protect uretprobe
lifetime (with timeout)
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 3:16 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 05:25:56PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
[...]
> > +
> > + /* We lost the race, undo refcount bump (if it ever happened) */
> > + if (uprobe)
> > + put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > + /*
> > + * Even if hprobe_consume() or another hprobe_expire() wins
> > + * the state update race and unlocks SRCU from under us, we
> > + * still have a guarantee that underyling uprobe won't be
> > + * freed due to ongoing caller's SRCU lock region, so we can
> > + * return it regardless. The caller then can attempt its own
> > + * try_get_uprobe() to preserve the instance, if necessary.
> > + * This is used in dup_utask().
> > + */
> > + return uprobe;
> > + }
> > + default:
> > + WARN(1, "unknown hprobe state %d", hstate);
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> So... after a few readings I think I'm mostly okay with this. But I got
> annoyed by the whole HPROBE_STABLE with uprobe=NULL weirdness. Also,
> that data_race() usage is weird, what is that about?
People keep saying that evil KCSAN will come after me if I don't add
data_race() for values that can change under me, so I add it to make
it explicit that it's fine. But I can of course just drop data_race(),
as it has no bearing on correctness.
>
> And then there's the case where we end up doing:
>
> try_get_uprobe()
> put_uprobe()
> try_get_uprobe()
>
> in the dup path. Yes, it's unlikely, but gah.
>
>
> So how about something like this?
Yep, it makes sense to start with HPROBE_GONE if it's already NULL, no
problem. I'll roll those changes in.
I'm fine with the `bool get` flag as well. Will incorporate all that
into the next revision, thanks!
The only problem I can see is in the assumption that `srcu_idx < 0` is
never going to be returned by srcu_read_lock(). Paul says that it can
only be 0 or 1, but it's not codified as part of a contract. So until
we change that, probably safer to pass an extra bool specifying
whether srcu_idx is valid or not, is that OK?
(and I assume you want me to drop verbose comments for various states, right?)
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 06ec41c75c45..efb4f5ee6212 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -657,20 +657,19 @@ static void put_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> call_srcu(&uretprobes_srcu, &uprobe->rcu, uprobe_free_srcu);
> }
>
> -/* Initialize hprobe as SRCU-protected "leased" uprobe */
> -static void hprobe_init_leased(struct hprobe *hprobe, struct uprobe *uprobe, int srcu_idx)
> +static void hprobe_init(struct hprobe *hprobe, struct uprobe *uprobe, int srcu_idx)
> {
> - hprobe->state = HPROBE_LEASED;
> - hprobe->uprobe = uprobe;
> - hprobe->srcu_idx = srcu_idx;
> -}
> + enum hprobe_state state = HPROBE_GONE;
>
> -/* Initialize hprobe as refcounted ("stable") uprobe (uprobe can be NULL). */
> -static void hprobe_init_stable(struct hprobe *hprobe, struct uprobe *uprobe)
> -{
> - hprobe->state = HPROBE_STABLE;
> + if (uprobe) {
> + state = HPROBE_LEASED;
> + if (srcu_idx < 0)
> + state = HPROBE_STABLE;
> + }
> +
> + hprobe->state = state;
> hprobe->uprobe = uprobe;
> - hprobe->srcu_idx = -1;
> + hprobe->srcu_idx = srcu_idx;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -713,8 +712,7 @@ static void hprobe_finalize(struct hprobe *hprobe, enum hprobe_state hstate)
> __srcu_read_unlock(&uretprobes_srcu, hprobe->srcu_idx);
> break;
> case HPROBE_STABLE:
> - if (hprobe->uprobe)
> - put_uprobe(hprobe->uprobe);
> + put_uprobe(hprobe->uprobe);
> break;
> case HPROBE_GONE:
> case HPROBE_CONSUMED:
> @@ -739,8 +737,9 @@ static void hprobe_finalize(struct hprobe *hprobe, enum hprobe_state hstate)
> * refcount, so caller has to attempt try_get_uprobe(), if it needs to
> * preserve uprobe beyond current SRCU lock region. See dup_utask().
> */
> -static struct uprobe* hprobe_expire(struct hprobe *hprobe)
> +static struct uprobe *hprobe_expire(struct hprobe *hprobe, bool get)
> {
> + struct uprobe *uprobe = NULL;
> enum hprobe_state hstate;
>
> /*
> @@ -749,25 +748,18 @@ static struct uprobe* hprobe_expire(struct hprobe *hprobe)
> */
> lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_held() && srcu_read_lock_held(&uretprobes_srcu));
>
> - hstate = data_race(READ_ONCE(hprobe->state));
> + hstate = READ_ONCE(hprobe->state);
> switch (hstate) {
> case HPROBE_STABLE:
> - /* uprobe is properly refcounted, return it */
> - return hprobe->uprobe;
> + uprobe = hprobe->uprobe;
> + break;
> +
> case HPROBE_GONE:
> - /*
> - * SRCU was unlocked earlier and we didn't manage to take
> - * uprobe refcnt, so it's effectively NULL
> - */
> - return NULL;
> case HPROBE_CONSUMED:
> - /*
> - * uprobe was consumed, so it's effectively NULL as far as
> - * uretprobe processing logic is concerned
> - */
> - return NULL;
> - case HPROBE_LEASED: {
> - struct uprobe *uprobe = try_get_uprobe(hprobe->uprobe);
> + break;
> +
> + case HPROBE_LEASED:
> + uprobe = try_get_uprobe(hprobe->uprobe);
> /*
> * Try to switch hprobe state, guarding against
> * hprobe_consume() or another hprobe_expire() racing with us.
> @@ -778,27 +770,26 @@ static struct uprobe* hprobe_expire(struct hprobe *hprobe)
> if (try_cmpxchg(&hprobe->state, &hstate, uprobe ? HPROBE_STABLE : HPROBE_GONE)) {
> /* We won the race, we are the ones to unlock SRCU */
> __srcu_read_unlock(&uretprobes_srcu, hprobe->srcu_idx);
> - return uprobe;
> + break;
> }
>
> /* We lost the race, undo refcount bump (if it ever happened) */
> - if (uprobe)
> + if (uprobe && !get) {
> put_uprobe(uprobe);
> - /*
> - * Even if hprobe_consume() or another hprobe_expire() wins
> - * the state update race and unlocks SRCU from under us, we
> - * still have a guarantee that underyling uprobe won't be
> - * freed due to ongoing caller's SRCU lock region, so we can
> - * return it regardless. The caller then can attempt its own
> - * try_get_uprobe() to preserve the instance, if necessary.
> - * This is used in dup_utask().
> - */
> + uprobe = NULL;
> + }
> +
> return uprobe;
> - }
> +
> default:
> WARN(1, "unknown hprobe state %d", hstate);
> return NULL;
> }
> +
> + if (uprobe && get)
> + return try_get_uprobe(uprobe);
> +
> + return uprobe;
> }
>
> static __always_inline
> @@ -1920,9 +1911,8 @@ static void ri_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> /* RCU protects return_instance from freeing. */
> guard(rcu)();
>
> - for_each_ret_instance_rcu(ri, utask->return_instances) {
> - hprobe_expire(&ri->hprobe);
> - }
> + for_each_ret_instance_rcu(ri, utask->return_instances)
> + hprobe_expire(&ri->hprobe, false);
> }
>
> static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void)
> @@ -1975,10 +1965,7 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct *t, struct uprobe_task *o_utask)
>
> *n = *o;
>
> - /* see hprobe_expire() comments */
> - uprobe = hprobe_expire(&o->hprobe);
> - if (uprobe) /* refcount bump for new utask */
> - uprobe = try_get_uprobe(uprobe);
> + uprobe = hprobe_expire(&o->hprobe, true);
>
> /*
> * New utask will have stable properly refcounted uprobe or
> @@ -1986,7 +1973,7 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct *t, struct uprobe_task *o_utask)
> * need to preserve full set of return_instances for proper
> * uretprobe handling and nesting in forked task.
> */
> - hprobe_init_stable(&n->hprobe, uprobe);
> + hprobe_init(&n->hprobe, uprobe, -1);
>
> n->next = NULL;
> rcu_assign_pointer(*p, n);
> @@ -2131,7 +2118,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> utask->depth++;
>
> - hprobe_init_leased(&ri->hprobe, uprobe, srcu_idx);
> + hprobe_init(&ri->hprobe, uprobe, srcu_idx);
> ri->next = utask->return_instances;
> rcu_assign_pointer(utask->return_instances, ri);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists