[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260107152716.GG2393663@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 16:27:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Paulo Andrade <pandrade@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] x86: 32-bit uprobes are broken
On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 03:32:53PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Paulo reported that uprobing the 32-bit tasks is broken.
>
> This script
>
> #!/usr/bin/bash
>
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
>
> echo 'void main(void) {}' > TEST.c
>
> # -fcf-protection to ensure that the 1st endbr32 insn can't be eulated
> gcc -m32 -fcf-protection=branch TEST.c -o test
>
> bpftrace -e 'uprobe:./test:main {}' -c ./test
>
> "hangs", the probed ./test task enters the endless loop.
>
> This patch
>
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1710,8 +1710,11 @@ static int xol_add_vma(struct mm_struct *mm, struct xol_area *area)
>
> if (!area->vaddr) {
> /* Try to map as high as possible, this is only a hint. */
> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32))
> + current_thread_info()->status |= TS_COMPAT;
> area->vaddr = get_unmapped_area(NULL, TASK_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE,
> PAGE_SIZE, 0, 0);
> + current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_COMPAT;
> if (IS_ERR_VALUE(area->vaddr)) {
> ret = area->vaddr;
> goto fail;
Urgh. Also I'm a little bit confused; set_personality_ia32(), which is
what sets TIF_ADDR32 (afaict) would also set TS_COMPAT, no?
> or this one
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
> @@ -205,6 +205,8 @@ arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown(struct file *filp, unsigned long addr0,
> info.low_limit = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> info.high_limit = get_mmap_base(0);
> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32))
> + info.high_limit = current->mm->mmap_compat_base;
> if (!(filp && is_file_hugepages(filp))) {
> info.start_gap = stack_guard_placement(vm_flags);
> info.align_offset = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
This one would be broken if there is ever a case where
get_unmapped_area() is called for mm != current->mm.
Ah, but get_mmap_base() seems to already rely on that. What a mess :/
Why can't get_mmap_base() rely on TIF_ADDR32 rather than TS_COMPAT? What
funny games are being played here? Mixed mode mm where some threads are
32bit and others are not?
> "fixes" the problem.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is that with randomize_va_space == 0 get_unmapped_area(TASK_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE)
> called by xol_add_vma() can't just return the "addr == TASK_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE" hint, this
> addr is used by the stack vma.
>
> arch_get_unmapped_area/arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown() doesn't take TIF_ADDR32 into
> account and in_32bit_syscall() is false, this leads to info.high_limit > TASK_SIZE.
> get_area() happily returns the "high" address and then get_unmapped_area() returns
> ENOMEM after the
>
> if (addr > TASK_SIZE - len)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> check; TASK_SIZE checks TIF_ADDR32.
>
> handle_swbp() doesn't report this failure (probably it should) and silently restarts
> the probed insn. Endless loop.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am considering the patch which adds something like
>
> // x86 version will use the TS_COMPAT hack
> unsigned long __weak arch_uprobe_area(void)
> {
> return get_unmapped_area(NULL, TASK_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, 0, 0);
> }
>
> but perhaps there is a better solution? perhaps it makes more sense to change
> arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c? What is the point of ignoring TIF_ADDR32 if the
> high adress will be nacked by the "if (addr > TASK_SIZE - len)" check anyway?
To me it seems a bit weird that get_unmapped_area() is so disconnected
from mm_struct.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists