[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250115150607.GA11980@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:06:07 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
BPF-dev-list <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, rafi@....io,
Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Crash when attaching uretprobes to processes running in Docker
On 01/15, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand... What exactly we can do? Aside from checking
> > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECCOMP) in arch_uprobe_trampoline() ?
>
> I need to check more on seccomp, but I imagine we could do following:
> - when seccomp filter is installed we could check uprobe trampoline
> and if it's already installed we change it to int3 trampoline
> - when uprobe trampoline is getting installed we check if there's
> seccomp filter installed for task and we use int3 trampoline
I still don't understand... But whatever you meant, I doubt it can work.
> other than that I guess we will have to add sysctl to enable uretprobe
> trampoline..
Or we can change __secure_computing() to do nothing if
this_syscall == __NR_uretprobe. Or even change syscall_trace_enter/exit
to do this check.
But I don't really like this idea, I don't feel this is the right solution...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists