linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 tip/perf/core 1/2] uprobes: allow put_uprobe() from non-sleepable softirq context

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: <20241021103151.GB6791@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:31:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
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 1/2] uprobes: allow put_uprobe() from
 non-sleepable softirq context

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 11:22:00AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 1:26 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 05:25:55PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > Currently put_uprobe() might trigger mutex_lock()/mutex_unlock(), which
> > > makes it unsuitable to be called from more restricted context like softirq.
> >
> > This is delayed_uprobe_lock, right?
> 
> Not just delated_uprobe_lock, there is also uprobes_treelock (I forgot
> to update the commit message to mention that). Oleg had concerns (see
> [0]) with that being taken from the timer thread, so I just moved all
> of the locking into deferred work callback.
> 
>   [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/20240915144910.GA27726@redhat.com/

Right, but at least that's not a sleeping lock. He's right about it
needing to become a softirq-safe lock though. And yeah, unfortunate
that.

> > So can't we do something like so instead?
> 
> I'll need to look at this more thoroughly (and hopefully Oleg will get
> a chance as well), dropping lock from delayed_ref_ctr_inc() is a bit
> scary, but might be ok.

So I figured that update_ref_ctr() is already doing the
__update_ref_ctr() thing without holding the lock, so that lock really
is only there to manage the list.

And that list is super offensive... That really wants to be a per-mm
rb-tree or somesuch.

AFAICT the only reason it is a mutex, is because doing unbouded list
iteration under a spinlock is a really bad idea.

> But generally speaking, what's your concern with doing deferred work
> in put_uprobe()? It's not a hot path by any means, worst case we'll
> have maybe thousands of uprobes attached/detached.

Mostly I got offended by the level of crap in that code, and working
around crap instead of fixing crap just ain't right.