linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing: fgraph: Protect return handler from recursion loop

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: <20250925075834.6f8f8b318e8f1e9d89b1f772@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 07:58:34 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt
 <rostedt@...nel.org>, Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>,
 jolsa@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
 kees@...nel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
 ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: fgraph: Protect return handler from recursion
 loop

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 18:52:03 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:05:19 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> >  
> > > The reason I would say not to have the warn on, is because we don't have a
> > > warn on for recursion happening at the entry handler. Because this now is
> > > exposed by fprobe allowing different routines to be called at exit than
> > > what is used in entry, it can easily be triggered.  
> > 
> > At the entry, if it detect recursion, it exits soon. But here we have to
> > process stack unwind to get the return address. This recursion_trylock()
> > is to mark this is in the critical section, not detect it.
> 
> Ah, because the first instance of the exit callback sets the recursion
> bit. This will cause recursed entry calls to detect the recursion bit
> and return without setting the exit handler to be called.
> 
> That is, by setting the recursion bit in the exit handler, it will cause
> a recursion in entry to fail before the exit is called again.
> 
> I'd like to update the comment:
> 
> +	bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(trace.func, ret);
> +	/*
> +	 * This must be succeeded because the entry handler returns before
> +	 * modifying the return address if it is nested. Anyway, we need to
> +	 * avoid calling user callbacks if it is nested.
> +	 */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bit < 0))
> +		goto out;
> +
> 
> to:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Setting the recursion bit here will cause the graph entry to
> 	 * detect recursion before the exit handle will. If the ext
> 	 * handler detects recursion, something went wrong.
> 	 */
> 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bit < 0))

OK, let me update it.

Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>