| 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: <20241113085309.e3752f5c33f86106fcb81180@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:09 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
mjguzik@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
vbabka@...e.cz, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, hannes@...xchg.org,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, david@...hat.com,
arnd@...db.de, richard.weiyang@...il.com, zhangpeng.00@...edance.com,
linmiaohe@...wei.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hca@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 tip/perf/core 4/4] uprobes: add speculative lockless
VMA-to-inode-to-uprobe resolution
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:09:58 -0800
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:05 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 4:28 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:08:18 -0700
> > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Given filp_cachep is marked SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU (and FMODE_BACKING
> > > > files, a special case, now goes through RCU-delated freeing), we can
> > > > safely access vma->vm_file->f_inode field locklessly under just
> > > > rcu_read_lock() protection, which enables looking up uprobe from
> > > > uprobes_tree completely locklessly and speculatively without the need to
> > > > acquire mmap_lock for reads. In most cases, anyway, assuming that there
> > > > are no parallel mm and/or VMA modifications. The underlying struct
> > > > file's memory won't go away from under us (even if struct file can be
> > > > reused in the meantime).
> > > >
> > > > We rely on newly added mmap_lock_speculation_{begin,end}() helpers to
> > > > validate that mm_struct stays intact for entire duration of this
> > > > speculation. If not, we fall back to mmap_lock-protected lookup.
> > > > The speculative logic is written in such a way that it will safely
> > > > handle any garbage values that might be read from vma or file structs.
> > > >
> > > > Benchmarking results speak for themselves.
> > > >
> > > > BEFORE (latest tip/perf/core)
> > > > =============================
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 3.384 ± 0.004M/s ( 3.384M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 5.456 ± 0.005M/s ( 2.728M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 7.863 ± 0.015M/s ( 2.621M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 9.442 ± 0.008M/s ( 2.360M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 11.036 ± 0.013M/s ( 2.207M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 10.884 ± 0.019M/s ( 1.814M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 7.897 ± 0.145M/s ( 1.128M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 10.021 ± 0.128M/s ( 1.253M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (10 cpus): 9.932 ± 0.170M/s ( 0.993M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (12 cpus): 8.369 ± 0.056M/s ( 0.697M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (14 cpus): 8.678 ± 0.017M/s ( 0.620M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 7.392 ± 0.003M/s ( 0.462M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (24 cpus): 5.326 ± 0.178M/s ( 0.222M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 5.426 ± 0.059M/s ( 0.170M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (40 cpus): 5.262 ± 0.070M/s ( 0.132M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (48 cpus): 6.121 ± 0.010M/s ( 0.128M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (56 cpus): 6.252 ± 0.035M/s ( 0.112M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 7.644 ± 0.023M/s ( 0.119M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (72 cpus): 7.781 ± 0.001M/s ( 0.108M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (80 cpus): 8.992 ± 0.048M/s ( 0.112M/s/cpu)
> > > >
> > > > AFTER
> > > > =====
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 1 cpus): 3.534 ± 0.033M/s ( 3.534M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 2 cpus): 6.701 ± 0.007M/s ( 3.351M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 3 cpus): 10.031 ± 0.007M/s ( 3.344M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 4 cpus): 13.003 ± 0.012M/s ( 3.251M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 5 cpus): 16.274 ± 0.006M/s ( 3.255M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 6 cpus): 19.563 ± 0.024M/s ( 3.261M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 7 cpus): 22.696 ± 0.054M/s ( 3.242M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop ( 8 cpus): 24.534 ± 0.010M/s ( 3.067M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (10 cpus): 30.475 ± 0.117M/s ( 3.047M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (12 cpus): 33.371 ± 0.017M/s ( 2.781M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (14 cpus): 38.864 ± 0.004M/s ( 2.776M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (16 cpus): 41.476 ± 0.020M/s ( 2.592M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (24 cpus): 64.696 ± 0.021M/s ( 2.696M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (32 cpus): 85.054 ± 0.027M/s ( 2.658M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (40 cpus): 101.979 ± 0.032M/s ( 2.549M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (48 cpus): 110.518 ± 0.056M/s ( 2.302M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (56 cpus): 117.737 ± 0.020M/s ( 2.102M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (64 cpus): 124.613 ± 0.079M/s ( 1.947M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (72 cpus): 133.239 ± 0.032M/s ( 1.851M/s/cpu)
> > > > uprobe-nop (80 cpus): 142.037 ± 0.138M/s ( 1.775M/s/cpu)
> > > >
> > > > Previously total throughput was maxing out at 11mln/s, and gradually
> > > > declining past 8 cores. With this change, it now keeps growing with each
> > > > added CPU, reaching 142mln/s at 80 CPUs (this was measured on a 80-core
> > > > Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6138 CPU @ 2.00GHz).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Looks good to me, except one question below.
> > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > > > Suggested-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> > > > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/events/uprobes.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > > index 290c445768fa..efcd62f7051d 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > > > @@ -2074,6 +2074,47 @@ static int is_trap_at_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr)
> > > > return is_trap_insn(&opcode);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_speculative(unsigned long bp_vaddr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > > > + struct uprobe *uprobe = NULL;
> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > + struct file *vm_file;
> > > > + loff_t offset;
> > > > + unsigned int seq;
> > > > +
> > > > + guard(rcu)();
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!mmap_lock_speculation_begin(mm, &seq))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + vma = vma_lookup(mm, bp_vaddr);
> > > > + if (!vma)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * vm_file memory can be reused for another instance of struct file,
> > > > + * but can't be freed from under us, so it's safe to read fields from
> > > > + * it, even if the values are some garbage values; ultimately
> > > > + * find_uprobe_rcu() + mmap_lock_speculation_end() check will ensure
> > > > + * that whatever we speculatively found is correct
> > >
> > > If vm_file is a garbage value, may `vm_file->f_inode` access be dangerous?
> > >
> > > > + */
> > > > + vm_file = READ_ONCE(vma->vm_file);
> > > > + if (!vm_file)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + offset = (loff_t)(vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (bp_vaddr - vma->vm_start);
> > > > + uprobe = find_uprobe_rcu(vm_file->f_inode, offset);
> > > ^^^^ Here
> > >
> > > if it only stores vm_file or NULL, there's no problem.
> >
> > IIRC correctly, vma->vm_file is RCU-safe and we are in the read RCU
> > section, so it should not contain a garbage value.
>
> Correct. vm_file itself can be either TYPESAFE_BY_RCU for normal
> files, or properly RCU protected for FMODE_BACKING ones. Either way,
> there is some correct struct file pointed to, and so all this is valid
> and won't dereference invalid memory.
OK, thanks for confirmation! This looks good to me.
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Thank you,
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > > + if (!uprobe)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* now double check that nothing about MM changed */
> > > > + if (!mmap_lock_speculation_end(mm, seq))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + return uprobe;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > /* assumes being inside RCU protected region */
> > > > static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_rcu(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int *is_swbp)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -2081,6 +2122,10 @@ static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_rcu(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int *is_swb
> > > > struct uprobe *uprobe = NULL;
> > > > struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > >
> > > > + uprobe = find_active_uprobe_speculative(bp_vaddr);
> > > > + if (uprobe)
> > > > + return uprobe;
> > > > +
> > > > mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > > > vma = vma_lookup(mm, bp_vaddr);
> > > > if (vma) {
> > > > --
> > > > 2.43.5
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists