[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20260209180844.c582bdbb6a4a5b737db7a0a7@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 18:08:44 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] tracing: Make the backup instance non-reusable
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 21:17:21 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:29:15 +0900
> "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> >
> > Since there is no reason to reuse the backup instance, make it
> > readonly (but erasable).
> > Note that only backup instances are readonly, because
> > other trace instances will be empty unless it is writable.
> > Only backup instances have copy entries from the original.
> >
> > With this change, most of the trace control files are removed
> > from the backup instance, including eventfs enable/filter etc.
> >
> > # find /sys/kernel/tracing/instances/backup/events/ | wc -l
> > 4093
> > # find /sys/kernel/tracing/instances/boot_map/events/ | wc -l
> > 9573
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > Changes in v6:
> > - Remove tracing_on file from readonly instances.
> > - Remove unused writable_mode from tracing_init_tracefs_percpu().
> > - Cleanup init_tracer_tracefs() and create_event_toplevel_files().
> > - Remove TRACE_MODE_WRITE_MASK.
> > - Add TRACE_ARRAY_FL_RDONLY.
> > Changes in v5:
> > - Rebased on the latest for-next (and hide show_event_filters/triggers
> > if the instance is readonly.
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Make trace data erasable. (not reusable)
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Resuse the beginning part of event_entries for readonly files.
> > - Remove readonly file_operations and checking readonly flag in
> > each write operation.
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Use readonly file_operations to prohibit writing instead of
> > checking flags in write() callbacks.
> > - Remove writable files from eventfs.
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > kernel/trace/trace.h | 7 +++
> > kernel/trace/trace_boot.c | 5 +-
> > kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 4 files changed, 117 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > index 5c3e4a554143..b0efcf1e0809 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > @@ -5052,6 +5052,11 @@ static ssize_t
> > tracing_write_stub(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
> > size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> > {
> > + struct trace_array *tr = file_inode(filp)->i_private;
> > +
> > + if (trace_array_is_readonly(tr))
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +
> > return count;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -5152,6 +5157,9 @@ tracing_cpumask_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
> > cpumask_var_t tracing_cpumask_new;
> > int err;
> >
> > + if (trace_array_is_readonly(tr))
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +
>
> Shouldn't these checks be done in the open function? Doing it now is
> too late, as -EPERM on a write is confusing when the open for write
> succeeds.
I've made a small program and straced. Surprisingly, for the super user,
open(2) does not return error on opening a readonly file with O_RDWR.
With normal user, it returns -EACCES
-----
$ strace ./write-test hoge
execve("./write-test", ["./write-test", "hoge"], 0x7ffc30b99928 /* 73 vars */) = 0
...
openat(AT_FDCWD, "hoge", O_RDWR) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied)
exit_group(-1) = ?
+++ exited with 255 +++
-----
But for the superuser case:
-----
$ sudo strace ./write-test hoge
execve("./write-test", ["./write-test", "hoge"], 0x7ffcffa80488 /* 32 vars */) = 0
...
openat(AT_FDCWD, "hoge", O_RDWR) = 3
write(3, "test\0", 5) = 5
fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(0x88, 0x2), ...}) = 0
write(1, "write return 5\n", 15write return 5
) = 15
exit_group(0) = ?
+++ exited with 0 +++
So I think we can postpone it until actual action for the superuser case.
(Anyway, I will make it return -EACCES)
Thank you,
>
> -- Steve
>
> > if (count == 0 || count > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists