From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
mhiramat@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
alexis.berlemont@gmail.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
linux@armlinux.org.uk, ralf@linux-mips.org, paul.burton@mips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] Uprobes/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:08:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180725110802.GA27325@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180716084706.28244-6-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
No, I can't understand this patch...
On 07/16, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ static struct percpu_rw_semaphore dup_mmap_sem;
>
> /* Have a copy of original instruction */
> #define UPROBE_COPY_INSN 0
> +/* Reference counter offset is reloaded with non-zero value. */
> +#define REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED 1
>
> struct uprobe {
> struct rb_node rb_node; /* node in the rb tree */
> @@ -476,9 +478,23 @@ int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> return ret;
>
> ret = verify_opcode(old_page, vaddr, &opcode);
> - if (ret <= 0)
> + if (ret < 0)
> goto put_old;
I agree, "ret <= 0" wasn't nice even before this change, but "ret < 0" looks
worse because this is simply not possible.
> + /*
> + * If instruction is already patched but reference counter offset
> + * has been reloaded to non-zero value, increment the reference
> + * counter and return.
> + */
> + if (ret == 0) {
> + if (is_register &&
> + test_bit(REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED, &uprobe->flags)) {
> + WARN_ON(!uprobe->ref_ctr_offset);
> + ret = update_ref_ctr(uprobe, mm, true);
> + }
> + goto put_old;
> + }
So we need to force update_ref_ctr(true) in case when uprobe_register_refctr()
detects the already registered uprobe with ref_ctr_offset == 0, and then it calls
register_for_each_vma().
Why this can't race with uprobe_mmap() ?
uprobe_mmap() can do install_breakpoint() right after REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED was set,
then register_for_each_vma() will find this vma and do install_breakpoint() too.
If ref_ctr_vma was already mmaped, the counter will be incremented twice, no?
> @@ -971,6 +1011,7 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> bool is_register = !!new;
> struct map_info *info;
> int err = 0;
> + bool installed = false;
>
> percpu_down_write(&dup_mmap_sem);
> info = build_map_info(uprobe->inode->i_mapping,
> @@ -1000,8 +1041,10 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> if (is_register) {
> /* consult only the "caller", new consumer. */
> if (consumer_filter(new,
> - UPROBE_FILTER_REGISTER, mm))
> + UPROBE_FILTER_REGISTER, mm)) {
> err = install_breakpoint(uprobe, mm, vma, info->vaddr);
> + installed = true;
> + }
> } else if (test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBES, &mm->flags)) {
> if (!filter_chain(uprobe,
> UPROBE_FILTER_UNREGISTER, mm))
> @@ -1016,6 +1059,8 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> }
> out:
> percpu_up_write(&dup_mmap_sem);
> + if (installed)
> + clear_bit(REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED, &uprobe->flags);
I simply can't understand this "bool installed"....
shouldn't we clear REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED unconditionally after register_for_each_vma()?
Also. Suppose we have a registered uprobe with ref_ctr_offset == 0. Then you add and
remove uprobe with ref_ctr_offset != 0. But afaics uprobe->ref_ctr_offset is never
cleared, so another uprobe with a different ref_ctr_offset != 0 will hit pr_warn/-EINVAL
in alloc_uprobe() and find_old_trace_uprobe() added by the previous patch can't detect
this case?
Plus it seems that we can have the unbalanced update_ref_ctr(false), at least in case
when __uprobe_register() with REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED set fails before it patches all mm's.
If/when the 1st uprobe with ref_ctr_offset == 0 goes away, remove_breakpoint() will dec
the counter even if wasn't incremented.
Quite possibly I am totally confused, but this patch wrong in many ways...
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: oleg@redhat.com (Oleg Nesterov)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v6 5/6] Uprobes/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:08:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180725110802.GA27325@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180716084706.28244-6-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
No, I can't understand this patch...
On 07/16, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ static struct percpu_rw_semaphore dup_mmap_sem;
>
> /* Have a copy of original instruction */
> #define UPROBE_COPY_INSN 0
> +/* Reference counter offset is reloaded with non-zero value. */
> +#define REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED 1
>
> struct uprobe {
> struct rb_node rb_node; /* node in the rb tree */
> @@ -476,9 +478,23 @@ int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> return ret;
>
> ret = verify_opcode(old_page, vaddr, &opcode);
> - if (ret <= 0)
> + if (ret < 0)
> goto put_old;
I agree, "ret <= 0" wasn't nice even before this change, but "ret < 0" looks
worse because this is simply not possible.
> + /*
> + * If instruction is already patched but reference counter offset
> + * has been reloaded to non-zero value, increment the reference
> + * counter and return.
> + */
> + if (ret == 0) {
> + if (is_register &&
> + test_bit(REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED, &uprobe->flags)) {
> + WARN_ON(!uprobe->ref_ctr_offset);
> + ret = update_ref_ctr(uprobe, mm, true);
> + }
> + goto put_old;
> + }
So we need to force update_ref_ctr(true) in case when uprobe_register_refctr()
detects the already registered uprobe with ref_ctr_offset == 0, and then it calls
register_for_each_vma().
Why this can't race with uprobe_mmap() ?
uprobe_mmap() can do install_breakpoint() right after REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED was set,
then register_for_each_vma() will find this vma and do install_breakpoint() too.
If ref_ctr_vma was already mmaped, the counter will be incremented twice, no?
> @@ -971,6 +1011,7 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> bool is_register = !!new;
> struct map_info *info;
> int err = 0;
> + bool installed = false;
>
> percpu_down_write(&dup_mmap_sem);
> info = build_map_info(uprobe->inode->i_mapping,
> @@ -1000,8 +1041,10 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> if (is_register) {
> /* consult only the "caller", new consumer. */
> if (consumer_filter(new,
> - UPROBE_FILTER_REGISTER, mm))
> + UPROBE_FILTER_REGISTER, mm)) {
> err = install_breakpoint(uprobe, mm, vma, info->vaddr);
> + installed = true;
> + }
> } else if (test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBES, &mm->flags)) {
> if (!filter_chain(uprobe,
> UPROBE_FILTER_UNREGISTER, mm))
> @@ -1016,6 +1059,8 @@ register_for_each_vma(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
> }
> out:
> percpu_up_write(&dup_mmap_sem);
> + if (installed)
> + clear_bit(REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED, &uprobe->flags);
I simply can't understand this "bool installed"....
shouldn't we clear REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED unconditionally after register_for_each_vma()?
Also. Suppose we have a registered uprobe with ref_ctr_offset == 0. Then you add and
remove uprobe with ref_ctr_offset != 0. But afaics uprobe->ref_ctr_offset is never
cleared, so another uprobe with a different ref_ctr_offset != 0 will hit pr_warn/-EINVAL
in alloc_uprobe() and find_old_trace_uprobe() added by the previous patch can't detect
this case?
Plus it seems that we can have the unbalanced update_ref_ctr(false), at least in case
when __uprobe_register() with REF_CTR_OFF_RELOADED set fails before it patches all mm's.
If/when the 1st uprobe with ref_ctr_offset == 0 goes away, remove_breakpoint() will dec
the counter even if wasn't incremented.
Quite possibly I am totally confused, but this patch wrong in many ways...
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-25 11:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-16 8:47 [PATCH v6 0/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore) Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] Uprobes: Simplify uprobe_register() body Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] Uprobe: Additional argument arch_uprobe to uprobe_write_opcode() Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore) Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-23 16:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-23 16:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-24 3:34 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-24 3:34 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-27 13:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-27 13:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-24 14:21 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-07-24 14:21 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-07-16 8:47 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] Uprobes/sdt: " Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-25 11:08 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2018-07-25 11:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-27 4:17 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-27 4:17 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-27 13:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-27 13:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-07-16 8:47 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] perf probe: Support SDT markers having reference counter (semaphore) Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-16 8:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-20 13:47 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore) Ravi Bangoria
2018-07-20 13:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180725110802.GA27325@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexis.berlemont@gmail.com \
--cc=ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.