Re: [PATCH] tracing: Fix tracing_marker may trigger page fault during preempt_disable
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2025-08-29 19:53:45
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:26:04 -0400 Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
BTW, the reason not to fault is because this might be called in code that is already doing a fault and could cause deadlocks. The no sleeping part is a side effect.The difference between __copy_from_user_inatomic() and copy_from_user_nofault() is the above. It is possible to fault in memory without sleeping. For instance, the memory is already in the page cache, but not the user space page tables. Where that would be OK for __copy_from_user_inatomic() but not OK with copy_from_user_nofault(), due to the mentioned locking.
The semantics of __copy_from_user_inatomic() are not entirely clear. The name implies it is to be used in atomic contexts but the documentation also says that the caller should ensure there's no fault (well, the comment is further down in uaccess.h for __copy_to_user_inatomic()). The generic implementation uses raw_copy_from_user() in both atomic and non-atomic variants. The difference is pretty much a might_fault() call. So it's nothing arm64 specific here.
For things like trace events and kprobes, copy_from_user_nofault() must be used because they can be added to code that is doing a fault, and this version must be used to prevent deadlocks. But here, the __copy_from_user_inatomic() is in the code to handle writing to the trace_marker file. It is directly called from a user space system call, and will never be called within code that faults. Thus, __copy_from_user_inatomic() *is* the correct operation, as there's no problem if it needs to fault. It just can't sleep when doing so.
The problem is that it's the responsibility of the caller to ensure it doesn't fault. In most cases, that's a pagefault_disable(). Or you just go for copy_from_user_nofault() instead which actually checks that it's a valid user address. BTW, arm64 also bails out early in do_page_fault() if in_atomic() but I suspect that's not the case here. Adding Al Viro since since he wrote a large part of uaccess.h. -- Catalin