netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory allocation

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: <20201118074609.20fdf9c4@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 07:46:09 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to
 memory allocation

On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 20:54:24 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:

> >  extern int
> > @@ -310,7 +312,12 @@ static inline struct tracepoint *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> >                 do {                                                    \
> >                         it_func = (it_func_ptr)->func;                  \
> >                         __data = (it_func_ptr)->data;                   \
> > -                       ((void(*)(void *, proto))(it_func))(__data, args); \
> > +                       /*                                              \
> > +                        * Removed functions that couldn't be allocated \
> > +                        * are replaced with TRACEPOINT_STUB.           \
> > +                        */                                             \
> > +                       if (likely(it_func != TRACEPOINT_STUB))         \
> > +                               ((void(*)(void *, proto))(it_func))(__data, args); \  
> 
> I think you're overreacting to the problem.

I will disagree with that.

> Adding run-time check to extremely unlikely problem seems wasteful.

Show me a real benchmark that you can notice a problem here. I bet that
check is even within the noise of calling an indirect function. Especially
on a machine with retpolines.

> 99.9% of the time allocate_probes() will do kmalloc from slab of small
> objects.
> If that slab is out of memory it means it cannot allocate a single page.
> In such case so many things will be failing to alloc that system
> is unlikely operational. oom should have triggered long ago.
> Imo Matt's approach to add __GFP_NOFAIL to allocate_probes()

Looking at the GFP_NOFAIL comment:

 * %__GFP_NOFAIL: The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely: the caller
 * cannot handle allocation failures. The allocation could block
 * indefinitely but will never return with failure. Testing for
 * failure is pointless.
 * New users should be evaluated carefully (and the flag should be
 * used only when there is no reasonable failure policy) but it is
 * definitely preferable to use the flag rather than opencode endless
 * loop around allocator.

I realized I made a mistake in my patch for using it, as my patch is a
failure policy. It looks like something we want to avoid in general.

Thanks, I'll send a v3 that removes it.

> when it's called from func_remove() is much better.
> The error was reported by syzbot that was using
> memory fault injections. ENOMEM in allocate_probes() was
> never seen in real life and highly unlikely will ever be seen.

And the biggest thing you are missing here, is that if you are running on a
machine that has static calls, this code is never hit unless you have more
than one callback on a single tracepoint. That's because when there's only
one callback, it gets called directly, and this loop is not involved.

-- Steve