| 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: <20250925075932.e42ead81f0c7d0ba6eb31511@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 07:59:32 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...nel.org>
Cc: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.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 19:00:56 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:06:47 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, the logic seems right, but the warning is triggered when
> > > I try to run the bpf bench testing:
> >
> > Hmm, this is strange. Let me check why this happens.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > >
> > > $ ./benchs/run_bench_trigger.sh kretprobe-multi-all
> > > [ 20.619642] NOTICE: Automounting of tracing to debugfs is deprecated and will be removed in 2030
> > > [ 139.509036] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > [ 139.509180] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 522 at kernel/trace/fgraph.c:839 ftrace_return_to_handler+0x2b9/0x2d0
> > > [ 139.509411] Modules linked in: virtio_net
> > > [ 139.509514] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 522 Comm: bench Not tainted 6.17.0-rc5-g1fe6d652bfa0 #106 NONE
> > > [ 139.509720] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Arch Linux 1.17.0-1-1 04/01/2014
> > > [ 139.509948] RIP: 0010:ftrace_return_to_handler+0x2b9/0x2d0
> > > [ 139.510086] Code: e8 0c 08 0e 00 0f 0b 49 c7 c1 00 73 20 81 e9 d1 fe ff ff 40 f6 c6 10 75 11 49 c7 c3 ef ff ff ff ba 10 00 00 00 e9 57 fe ff ff <0f> 0b e9 a5 fe ff ff e8 1b 72 0d 01 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00
> > > [ 139.510536] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000012cef8 EFLAGS: 00010002
> > > [ 139.510664] RAX: ffff88810f709800 RBX: ffffc900007c3678 RCX: 0000000000000003
> > > [ 139.510835] RDX: 0000000000000008 RSI: 0000000000000018 RDI: 0000000000000000
> > > [ 139.511007] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000034 R09: ffffffff82550319
> > > [ 139.511184] R10: ffffc9000012cf50 R11: fffffffffffffff7 R12: 0000000000000000
> > > [ 139.511357] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> > > [ 139.511532] FS: 00007fe58276fb00(0000) GS:ffff8884ab3b8000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > [ 139.511724] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > [ 139.511865] CR2: 0000562a28314b67 CR3: 00000001143f9000 CR4: 0000000000750ef0
> > > [ 139.512038] PKRU: 55555554
> > > [ 139.512106] Call Trace:
> > > [ 139.512177] <IRQ>
> > > [ 139.512232] ? irq_exit_rcu+0x4/0xb0
> > > [ 139.512322] return_to_handler+0x1e/0x50
> > > [ 139.512422] ? idle_cpu+0x9/0x50
> > > [ 139.512506] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x69/0x80
> > > [ 139.512638] ? idle_cpu+0x9/0x50
> > > [ 139.512731] ? irq_exit_rcu+0x3a/0xb0
> > > [ 139.512833] ? ftrace_stub_direct_tramp+0x10/0x10
> > > [ 139.512961] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x69/0x80
> > > [ 139.513101] </IRQ>
> > > [ 139.513168] <TASK>
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RETVAL
> > > > trace.retval = ftrace_regs_get_return_value(fregs);
> > > > #endif
> > > > @@ -852,6 +862,8 @@ __ftrace_return_to_handler(struct ftrace_regs *fregs, unsigned long frame_pointe
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
> > > > +out:
> > > > /*
> > > > * The ftrace_graph_return() may still access the current
> > > > * ret_stack structure, we need to make sure the update of
>
>
> Hmm, I wonder if this has to do with the "TRANSITION BIT". The
> ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() allows one level of recursion. This is
> to handle the case of an interrupt happening after the recursion bit is
> set and traces something before it updates the context in the preempt
> count. This would cause a false positive of the recursion test. To
> handle this case, it allows a single level of recursion.
>
> I originally was going to mention this, but I still can't see how this
> would affect it. Because if the entry were to allow one level of
> recursion, so would the exit. I still see the entry preventing the exit
> to be called. But perhaps there's an combination that I missed?
If the fgraph allows one level of recursion, fprobe should work around
functions called from fprobe's callback, such as is_endbr(), as follows:
/* probe on enter */
call target_func()
=> function_graph_enter_regs() /* 1st lock */
-> fprobe_entry()
-> user_callback()
-> is_endbr()
=> function_graph_enter_regs() /* 2nd lock */
-> fprobe_entry()
-> user_callback()
-> is_endbr()
=> function_graph_enter_regs() /* lock failed */
/* probe on exit */
call target_func()
=> function_graph_enter_regs()
-> ftrace_push_return_trace()
/* run target_func() */
=> __ftrace_return_to_handler() /* 1st lock */
-> fprobe_exit()
-> user_callback()
-> is_endbr()
=> function_graph_enter_regs() /* 2nd lock */
-> ftrace_push_return_trace()
/* unlock 2nd */
/* run is_endbr() */
=> __ftrace_return_to_handler() /* 2nd lock again */
-> fprobe_exit()
-> user_callback()
-> is_endbr()
=> function_graph_enter_regs() /* lock failed */
/* run is_endbr() */
So it can detect the recursion.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists