Thread (18 messages) 18 messages, 5 authors, 2023-09-25

Re: [PATCH] tracing/user_events: align uaddr on unsigned long alignment

flat view

From: Clément Léger <hidden>
Date: 2023-09-25 07:53:24
Also in: lkml


On 22/09/2023 21:22, Beau Belgrave wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:59:12PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
quoted

On 14/09/2023 19:29, Steven Rostedt wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 13:17:00 -0400
Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Now lets look at big endian layout:

 uaddr = 0xbeef0004
 enabler = 1;

 memory at 0xbeef0000:  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
                                    ^
                                    addr: 0xbeef0004

				(enabler is set )

	bitoffset = uaddr & (sizeof(unsigned long) - 1); bitoffset = 4
	bit_offset *= 8;				 bitoffset = 32
	uaddr &= ~(sizeof(unsigned long) - 1);		 uaddr = 0xbeef0000

	ptr = kaddr + (uaddr & ~PAGE_MASK);

	clear_bit(1 + 32, ptr);

 memory at 0xbeef0000:  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
                                  ^
				bit 33 of 0xbeef0000

I don't think that's what you expected!
I believe the above can be fixed with:

	bit_offset = uaddr & (sizeof(unsigned long) - 1);
	if (bit_offset) {
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
		bit_offest = 0;
#else
		bit_offset *= BITS_PER_BYTE;
#endif
		uaddr &= ~(sizeof(unsigned long) - 1);
	}

-- Steve

Actually, after looking more in depth at that, it seems like there are
actually 2 problems that can happen.

First one is atomic access misalignment due to enable_size == 4 and
uaddr not being aligned on a (long) boundary on 64 bits architecture.
This can generate misaligned exceptions on various architectures. This
can be fixed in a more general way according to Masami snippet.

Second one that I can see is on 64 bits, big endian architectures with
enable_size == 4. In that case, the bit provided by the userspace won't
be correctly set since this code kind of assume that the atomic are done
on 32bits value. Since the kernel assume long sized atomic operation, on
big endian 64 bits architecture, the updated bit will actually be in the
next 32 bits word.

Can someone confirm my understanding ?
I have a ppc 64bit BE VM I've been validating this on. If we do the
shifting within user_events (vs a generic set_bit_aligned approach)
64bit BE does not need additional bit manipulation. However, if we were
to blindly pass the address and bit as is to set_bit_aligned() it
assumes the bit number is for a long, not a 32 bit word. So for that
approach we would need to offset the bit in the unaligned case.

Here's a patch I have that I've validated on ppc64 BE, aarch64 LE, and
x86_64 LE. I personally feel more comfortable with this approach than
the generic set_bit_aligned() one.

Thanks,
-Beau
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c b/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c
index e3f2b8d72e01..ae854374d0b7 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c
@@ -162,6 +162,23 @@ struct user_event_validator {
 	int			flags;
 };
 
+static inline void align_addr_bit(unsigned long *addr, int *bit)
+{
+	if (IS_ALIGNED(*addr, sizeof(long)))
+		return;
+
+	*addr = ALIGN_DOWN(*addr, sizeof(long));
+
+	/*
+	 * We only support 32 and 64 bit values. The only time we need
+	 * to align is a 32 bit value on a 64 bit kernel, which on LE
+	 * is always 32 bits, and on BE requires no change.
+	 */
+#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+	*bit += 32;
+#endif
Hi Beau, except the specific alignment that is basically what I ended up
with for the BE 64bit case (ie just bit += 32). Regarding the generic
alignment, depends on what the maintainers wishes (generic of user_event
specific). I also feel like this shoulmd be handle specifically for
user_events which uses set_bit in some non standard way. Any suggestion ?

Thanks,

Clément
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+}
+
 typedef void (*user_event_func_t) (struct user_event *user, struct iov_iter *i,
 				   void *tpdata, bool *faulted);
 
@@ -481,6 +498,7 @@ static int user_event_enabler_write(struct user_event_mm *mm,
 	unsigned long *ptr;
 	struct page *page;
 	void *kaddr;
+	int bit = ENABLE_BIT(enabler);
 	int ret;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&event_mutex);
@@ -496,6 +514,8 @@ static int user_event_enabler_write(struct user_event_mm *mm,
 		     test_bit(ENABLE_VAL_FREEING_BIT, ENABLE_BITOPS(enabler))))
 		return -EBUSY;
 
+	align_addr_bit(&uaddr, &bit);
+
 	ret = pin_user_pages_remote(mm->mm, uaddr, 1, FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_NOFAULT,
 				    &page, NULL);
 
@@ -514,9 +534,9 @@ static int user_event_enabler_write(struct user_event_mm *mm,
 
 	/* Update bit atomically, user tracers must be atomic as well */
 	if (enabler->event && enabler->event->status)
-		set_bit(ENABLE_BIT(enabler), ptr);
+		set_bit(bit, ptr);
 	else
-		clear_bit(ENABLE_BIT(enabler), ptr);
+		clear_bit(bit, ptr);
 
 	kunmap_local(kaddr);
 	unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(&page, 1, true);
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help