netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH tip/master 2/3] kprobes: Allocate kretprobe instance if its free list is empty

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]

Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:53:32 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...il.com>,
        Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        iago@...volk.io, michael@...volk.io,
        Dorau Lukasz <lukasz.dorau@...el.com>, systemtap@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH tip/master 2/3] kprobes: Allocate kretprobe instance
 if its free list is empty


* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:

> > So this is something I missed while the original code was merged, but the concept 
> > looks a bit weird: why do we do any "allocation" while a handler is executing?
> > 
> > That's fundamentally fragile. What's the maximum number of parallel 
> > 'kretprobe_instance' required per kretprobe - one per CPU?
> 
> It depends on the place where we put the probe. If the probed function will be
> blocked (yield to other tasks), then we need a same number of threads on
> the system which can invoke the function. So, ultimately, it is same
> as function_graph tracer, we need it for each thread.

So then put it into task_struct (assuming there's no kretprobe-inside-kretprobe 
nesting allowed). There's just no way in hell we should be calling any complex 
kernel function from kernel probes!

I mean, think about it, a kretprobe can be installed in a lot of places, and now 
we want to call get_free_pages() from it?? This would add a massive amount of 
fragility.

Instrumentation must be _simple_, every patch that adds more complexity to the 
most fundamental code path of it should raise a red flag ...

So let's make this more robust, ok?

Thanks,

	Ingo