linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 32/39] perf: Remove get_perf

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: <CAEf4BzZXE8boqkjt38=BYUWCJd_bomdcjx2CGX=LPfc59xzz2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:39:15 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
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.kernel.org, 
	Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, 
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Weinan Liu <wnliu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 32/39] perf: Remove get_perf_callchain() 'crosstask' argument

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:13:23AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:32 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > @@ -430,10 +429,8 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *task,
> > >         if (task && user && !user_mode(regs))
> > >                 goto err_fault;
> > >
> > > -       /* get_perf_callchain does not support crosstask user stack walking
> > > -        * but returns an empty stack instead of NULL.
> > > -        */
> > > -       if (crosstask && user) {
> > > +       /* get_perf_callchain() does not support crosstask stack walking */
> > > +       if (crosstask) {
> >
> > crosstask stack trace is supported for kernel stack traces (see
> > get_callchain_entry_for_task() call), so this is breaking that case
>
> Oh I see, thanks.
>
> BTW, that seems dubious, does it do anything to ensure the task isn't
> running?   Otherwise the unwind is going to be a wild ride.

Yeah, I think it's very speculative and doesn't pause the task in any
way (just makes sure it doesn't go away). We just rely on
stack_trace_save_tsk() -> arch_stack_walk(), which just optimistically
tries to unwind, it seems.

It's still useful and if the user is prepared to handle a potentially
garbage stack trace, why not. People do similar thing for user space
stack trace (with custom BPF code), and it's very useful (even if not
"reliable" by any means).


>
> --
> Josh