| 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: <Z1MFBVRuUnuYKo8c@krava>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:07:01 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liaochang1@...wei.com,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core 4/4] uprobes: reuse return_instances between
multiple uretprobes within task
On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:24:17PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
SNIP
> +static void free_ret_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask,
> + struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe)
> +{
> + unsigned seq;
> +
> if (cleanup_hprobe) {
> enum hprobe_state hstate;
>
> @@ -1897,8 +1923,22 @@ static void free_ret_instance(struct return_instance *ri, bool cleanup_hprobe)
> hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate);
> }
>
> - kfree(ri->extra_consumers);
> - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu);
> + /*
> + * At this point return_instance is unlinked from utask's
> + * return_instances list and this has become visible to ri_timer().
> + * If seqcount now indicates that ri_timer's return instance
> + * processing loop isn't active, we can return ri into the pool of
> + * to-be-reused return instances for future uretprobes. If ri_timer()
> + * happens to be running right now, though, we fallback to safety and
> + * just perform RCU-delated freeing of ri.
> + */
> + if (raw_seqcount_try_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount, seq)) {
> + /* immediate reuse of ri without RCU GP is OK */
> + ri_pool_push(utask, ri);
should the push be limitted somehow? I wonder you could make uprobes/consumers
setup that would allocate/push many of ri instances that would not be freed
until the process exits?
jirka
> + } else {
> + /* we might be racing with ri_timer(), so play it safe */
> + ri_free(ri);
> + }
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1920,7 +1960,15 @@ void uprobe_free_utask(struct task_struct *t)
> ri = utask->return_instances;
> while (ri) {
> ri_next = ri->next;
> - free_ret_instance(ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */);
> + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */);
> + ri = ri_next;
> + }
> +
> + /* free_ret_instance() above might add to ri_pool, so this loop should come last */
> + ri = utask->ri_pool;
> + while (ri) {
> + ri_next = ri->next;
> + ri_free(ri);
> ri = ri_next;
> }
>
> @@ -1943,8 +1991,12 @@ static void ri_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> /* RCU protects return_instance from freeing. */
> guard(rcu)();
>
> + write_seqcount_begin(&utask->ri_seqcount);
> +
> for_each_ret_instance_rcu(ri, utask->return_instances)
> hprobe_expire(&ri->hprobe, false);
> +
> + write_seqcount_end(&utask->ri_seqcount);
> }
>
> static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void)
> @@ -1956,6 +2008,7 @@ static struct uprobe_task *alloc_utask(void)
> return NULL;
>
> timer_setup(&utask->ri_timer, ri_timer, 0);
> + seqcount_init(&utask->ri_seqcount);
>
> return utask;
> }
> @@ -1975,10 +2028,14 @@ static struct uprobe_task *get_utask(void)
> return current->utask;
> }
>
> -static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(void)
> +static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(struct uprobe_task *utask)
> {
> struct return_instance *ri;
>
> + ri = ri_pool_pop(utask);
> + if (ri)
> + return ri;
> +
> ri = kzalloc(sizeof(*ri), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!ri)
> return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
> @@ -2119,7 +2176,7 @@ static void cleanup_return_instances(struct uprobe_task *utask, bool chained,
> rcu_assign_pointer(utask->return_instances, ri_next);
> utask->depth--;
>
> - free_ret_instance(ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */);
> + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, true /* cleanup_hprobe */);
> ri = ri_next;
> }
> }
> @@ -2186,7 +2243,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs,
>
> return;
> free:
> - kfree(ri);
> + ri_free(ri);
> }
>
> /* Prepare to single-step probed instruction out of line. */
> @@ -2385,8 +2442,7 @@ static struct return_instance *push_consumer(struct return_instance *ri, __u64 i
> if (unlikely(ri->cons_cnt > 0)) {
> ric = krealloc(ri->extra_consumers, sizeof(*ric) * ri->cons_cnt, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!ric) {
> - kfree(ri->extra_consumers);
> - kfree_rcu(ri, rcu);
> + ri_free(ri);
> return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
> }
> ri->extra_consumers = ric;
> @@ -2428,8 +2484,9 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
> bool has_consumers = false, remove = true;
> struct return_instance *ri = NULL;
> + struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
>
> - current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch;
> + utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch;
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
> bool session = uc->handler && uc->ret_handler;
> @@ -2449,12 +2506,12 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> continue;
>
> if (!ri)
> - ri = alloc_return_instance();
> + ri = alloc_return_instance(utask);
>
> if (session)
> ri = push_consumer(ri, uc->id, cookie);
> }
> - current->utask->auprobe = NULL;
> + utask->auprobe = NULL;
>
> if (!ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri))
> prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri);
> @@ -2554,7 +2611,7 @@ void uprobe_handle_trampoline(struct pt_regs *regs)
> hprobe_finalize(&ri->hprobe, hstate);
>
> /* We already took care of hprobe, no need to waste more time on that. */
> - free_ret_instance(ri, false /* !cleanup_hprobe */);
> + free_ret_instance(utask, ri, false /* !cleanup_hprobe */);
> ri = ri_next;
> } while (ri != next_chain);
> } while (!valid);
> --
> 2.43.5
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists