linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] uprobes: Add support to optimize usdt probes on x86

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: <Z1w_Qi_Wya56YDO_@krava>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 15:05:54 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] uprobes: Add support to optimize usdt
 probes on x86_64

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 02:54:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 02:07:54PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 11:51:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:33:49PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > > this patchset adds support to optimize usdt probes on top of 5-byte
> > > > nop instruction.
> > > > 
> > > > The generic approach (optimize all uprobes) is hard due to emulating
> > > > possible multiple original instructions and its related issues. The
> > > > usdt case, which stores 5-byte nop seems much easier, so starting
> > > > with that.
> > > > 
> > > > The basic idea is to replace breakpoint exception with syscall which
> > > > is faster on x86_64. For more details please see changelog of patch 8.
> > > 
> > > So ideally we'd put a check in the syscall, which verifies it comes from
> > > one of our trampolines and reject any and all other usage.
> > > 
> > > The reason to do this is that we can then delete all this code the
> > > moment it becomes irrelevant without having to worry userspace might be
> > > 'creative' somewhere.
> > 
> > yes, we do that already in SYSCALL_DEFINE0(uprobe):
> > 
> >         /* Allow execution only from uprobe trampolines. */
> >         vma = vma_lookup(current->mm, regs->ip);
> >         if (!vma || vma->vm_private_data != (void *) &tramp_mapping) {
> >                 force_sig(SIGILL);
> >                 return -1;
> >         }
> 
> Ah, right I missed that. Doesn't that need more locking through? The
> moment vma_lookup() returns that vma can go bad.

ugh yes.. I guess mmap_read_lock(current->mm) should do, will check

thanks,
jirka