All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@huawei.com>
Cc: mhiramat@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
	alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
	irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
	kan.liang@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 12:17:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240807101746.GA27715@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240806172529.GC20881@redhat.com>

So. Liao, I am sorry, but I dislike your patch/approach in any case.

UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL complicates the state machine. And I don't like the fact
that set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING) is called twice, from handle_singlestep()
and uprobe_post_sstep_notifier(), this complicates the logic even more.

We need a flag, not the new state.

And if I read this patch correctly it is wrong:

	- uprobe_deny_signal() clears TIF_SIGPENDING and sets UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL

	- another signal cames after that and sets TIF_SIGPENDING again

	- in this case the task won't return to user-space and execute the probed
	  insn, exit_to_user_mode_loop() will notice another TIF_SIGPENDING and
	  call arch_do_signal_or_restart()->get_signal() again.

	- get_signal() will call uprobe_deny_signal() again hit

		WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);


And no, we shouldn't change this check into UTASK_SSTEP || UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL.
Again, the fact that uprobe_deny_signal() cleared TIF_SIGPENDING must not be the
new state.

Oleg.

On 08/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/06, Liao, Chang wrote:
> >
> > You're absolutely right. handle_signlestep() has chance to handle _DENY_SIGANL
> > unless it followed by setting TIF_UPROBE in uprobe_deny_signal(). This means
> > _DENY_SIGNAL is likey replaced during next uprobe single-stepping.
> >
> > I believe introducing _DENY_SIGNAL as the immediate state between UTASK_SSTEP
> > and UTASK_SSTEP_ACK is still necessary. This allow uprobe_post_sstep_notifier()
> > to correctly restore TIF_SIGPENDING upon the completion of single-step.
> >
> > A revised implementation would look like this:
>
> Still looks "obviously wrong" to me... even the approach itself.
>
> Perhaps I am wrong, yet another day when I can't even read emails on lkml
> carefully, sorry.
>
> But can you please send the patch which I could actually apply? This one
> looks white-space damaged...
>
> I'll try to reply with more details as soon I convince myself I fully
> understand what does your patch actually do, but most probably not tomorrow.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oleg.
>
> > ------------------%<------------------
> > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > @@ -1980,6 +1980,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
> >
> >         if (task_sigpending(t)) {
> >                 clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
> > +               utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL;
> >
> >                 if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
> >                         utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED;
> > @@ -2276,22 +2277,23 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
> >         int err = 0;
> >
> >         uprobe = utask->active_uprobe;
> > -       if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_ACK)
> > +       switch (utask->state) {
> > +       case UTASK_SSTEP_ACK:
> >                 err = arch_uprobe_post_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
> > -       else if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED)
> > +               break;
> > +       case UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED:
> >                 arch_uprobe_abort_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
> > -       else
> > +               set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> > +               break;
> > +       default:
> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > +       }
> >
> >         put_uprobe(uprobe);
> >         utask->active_uprobe = NULL;
> >         utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
> >         xol_free_insn_slot(current);
> >
> > -       spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> > -       recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
> > -       spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> > -
> >         if (unlikely(err)) {
> >                 uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");
> >                 force_sig(SIGILL);
> > @@ -2351,6 +2353,8 @@ int uprobe_post_sstep_notifier(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >                 /* task is currently not uprobed */
> >                 return 0;
> >
> > +       if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL)
> > +               set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> >         utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_ACK;
> >         set_thread_flag(TIF_UPROBE);
> >         return 1;
> >
> > ------------------>%------------------
> >
> > >
> > > Oleg.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > BR
> > Liao, Chang
> >


  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-07 10:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-01  8:24 [PATCH] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock Liao Chang
2024-08-01 14:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-02  1:38   ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-02  9:24     ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-06  3:06       ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-06 17:25         ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-07 10:17           ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2024-08-08  7:30             ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-08 10:28               ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-08 12:31                 ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-08 13:17                   ` Oleg Nesterov

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=20240807101746.GA27715@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=liaochang1@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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.