Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] fprobe: make fprobe_kprobe_handler recursion free
From: Yafang Shao <hidden>
Date: 2023-06-28 08:33:07
Also in:
bpf, linux-riscv, linux-s390, lkml
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:45 AM Ze Gao [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Current implementation calls kprobe related functions before doing ftrace recursion check in fprobe_kprobe_handler, which opens door to kernel crash due to stack recursion if preempt_count_{add, sub} is traceable in kprobe_busy_{begin, end}. Things goes like this without this patch quoted from Steven: " fprobe_kprobe_handler() { kprobe_busy_begin() { preempt_disable() { preempt_count_add() { <-- trace fprobe_kprobe_handler() { [ wash, rinse, repeat, CRASH!!! ] " By refactoring the common part out of fprobe_kprobe_handler and fprobe_handler and call ftrace recursion detection at the very beginning, the whole fprobe_kprobe_handler is free from recursion. Signed-off-by: Ze Gao <redacted> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/20230516071830.8190-3-zegao@tencent.com (local) --- kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)diff --git a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c index 9abb3905bc8e..097c740799ba 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c +++ b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c@@ -20,30 +20,22 @@ struct fprobe_rethook_node { char data[]; }; -static void fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip, - struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs) +static inline void __fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long + parent_ip, struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs) { struct fprobe_rethook_node *fpr; struct rethook_node *rh = NULL; struct fprobe *fp; void *entry_data = NULL; - int bit, ret; + int ret; fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops); - if (fprobe_disabled(fp)) - return; - - bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip); - if (bit < 0) { - fp->nmissed++; - return; - } if (fp->exit_handler) { rh = rethook_try_get(fp->rethook); if (!rh) { fp->nmissed++; - goto out; + return; } fpr = container_of(rh, struct fprobe_rethook_node, node); fpr->entry_ip = ip;@@ -61,23 +53,60 @@ static void fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip, else rethook_hook(rh, ftrace_get_regs(fregs), true); } -out: +} + +static void fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip, + struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs) +{ + struct fprobe *fp; + int bit; + + fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops); + if (fprobe_disabled(fp)) + return; + + /* recursion detection has to go before any traceable function and + * all functions before this point should be marked as notrace + */ + bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip); + if (bit < 0) { + fp->nmissed++; + return; + } + __fprobe_handler(ip, parent_ip, ops, fregs); ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit); + } NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(fprobe_handler); static void fprobe_kprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip, struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs) { - struct fprobe *fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops); + struct fprobe *fp; + int bit; + + fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops); + if (fprobe_disabled(fp)) + return; + + /* recursion detection has to go before any traceable function and + * all functions called before this point should be marked as notrace + */ + bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip); + if (bit < 0) { + fp->nmissed++; + return; + } if (unlikely(kprobe_running())) { fp->nmissed++;
I have just looked through this patchset, just out of curiosity, shouldn't we call ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit) here ? We have already locked it successfully, so why should we not unlock it?
return;
}
+
kprobe_busy_begin();
- fprobe_handler(ip, parent_ip, ops, fregs);
+ __fprobe_handler(ip, parent_ip, ops, fregs);
kprobe_busy_end();
+ ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
}
static void fprobe_exit_handler(struct rethook_node *rh, void *data,
--
2.40.1
-- Regards Yafang