linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 11/19] unwind: Add deferred user space unwinding API

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: <20241031231320.h2hwns367e5byvyy@jpoimboe>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:13:20 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Jordan Rome <jordalgo@...a.com>,
	Sam James <sam@...too.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kerne.org,
	Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/19] unwind: Add deferred user space unwinding API

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 02:22:48PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Problem is, the unwinder doesn't know in advance which tasks will be
> > unwound.
> >
> > Its first clue is unwind_user_register(), would it make sense for the
> > caller to clarify whether all tasks need to be unwound or only a
> > specific subset?
> >
> > Its second clue is unwind_user_deferred(), which is called for the task
> > itself.  But by then it's too late because it needs to access the
> > per-task data from (potentially) irq context so it can't do a lazy
> > allocation.
> >
> > I'm definitely open to ideas...
> 
> The laziest thing would be to perform GFP_ATOMIC allocation, and if
> that fails, oops, too bad, no stack trace for you (but, generally
> speaking, no big deal). Advantages are clear, though, right? Single
> pointer in task_struct, which most of the time will be NULL, so no
> unnecessary overheads.

GFP_ATOMIC is limited, I don't think we want the unwinder to trigger
OOM.

> It's the last point that's important to make usability so much
> simpler, avoiding unnecessary custom timeouts and stuff like that.
> Regardless whether stack trace capture is success or not, user is
> guaranteed to get a "notification" about the outcome.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> But basically, if I I called unwind_user_deferred(), I expect to get
> some callback, guaranteed, with the result or failure. The only thing
> that's not guaranteed (and which makes timeouts bad) is *when* this
> will happen. Because stack trace capture can be arbitrarily delayed
> and stuff. That's fine, but that also shows why timeout is tricky and
> necessarily fragile.

That sounds reasonable.  In the OOM error case I can just pass a small
(stack allocated) one-entry trace with only regs->ip.

-- 
Josh