From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D996B1401C for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 19:41:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C445A12E for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-99bcf2de59cso330758166b.0 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693165289; x=1693770089; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dtOReuCG2LtJLkXPBZy6w7ZugfLsBr/nQL1Exzye5GU=; b=n7YgV6+/nEe+PNrDk23EBtXJvDDNU0Hb463SEN5j8ZUetCL6rScYet10m0Yl9Z+Bde weDhz+IoDPP5VfYQkholj3zXBCmhFT4HmBSIOwSPCLFMiIoOBCIO64JsvEYg1eUmu7Fm LFOC77ONbKSwNgUeKMWwkgqxIZbeU3q+SJK+xytRz4NRHgkAxv+S041RdwO1QAspi9R0 qaArqDV+uQF6e+h6FNZ0BlUYChtct+xKWxxjfIRDp4svBSfrhUOEbwWDEyZG+ooTG6kh w306AP1tP4ONK8Mz7FMWp3CJKZYOCLbLX/qzePUihArVALKf4RiJQ0+ZURKbW7kQUGVn HMFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693165289; x=1693770089; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dtOReuCG2LtJLkXPBZy6w7ZugfLsBr/nQL1Exzye5GU=; b=EZNxoyn9/SbfbMJxizhsCO52Fxg+qlv9K4TjdlH6VpdGp/7m5oFpQCGL8nWrnnGt9C DdMUBXEP7IvrF+hbCUPL/DrShHZRU+79ODHssHRLpMfrP92eo1+d4N3qbWppzu/BY5yV haYTCrSbw244fDjacizstaWsMi7srWKy5LiUL8vif7e4PdrpElFAIwQRKTsHQQx0+fYS UcNQuTQchldJhiS8IhPVB9yecSdl92AeA7HpbjLOKo98lxnhrJoGWdhpQY1nNRo4tnJo +KaR3hK9XZlHkXJArjct28UH370oAzhCCXYyvRxPVvrgE+KDAQRbLd6yGmY+UIFQN5mg NrzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzyclEVC6tVhV62xuasVnuS70XYJKOVDZhuHJTsQu5Es3ubh5Go OeyX2xhjiE/eq14fXoU1LHHMSjgSzRc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFuqSmkJLo+RTdqdoTG5olx7LlmPyAs+/AVl64S4Q9zFjqORp2696DtLCW63gWIrAkWkSCf7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2be0:b0:9a5:a247:5bbc with SMTP id gv32-20020a1709072be000b009a5a2475bbcmr1868830ejc.28.1693165288863; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 12:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nam-dell (ip-217-105-46-58.ip.prioritytelecom.net. [217.105.46.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a1-20020a17090640c100b0099bcf9c2ec6sm3720828ejk.75.2023.08.27.12.41.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 27 Aug 2023 12:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 21:41:27 +0200 From: Nam Cao To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Guo Ren , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Hou Tao , yonghong.song@linux.dev, Alexei Starovoitov , Puranjay Mohan Subject: Re: RISC-V uprobe bug (Was: Re: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 261 at kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:342) Message-ID: References: <87jztjmmy4.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <87v8d19aun.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <87cyz8sy4y.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <87y1hw7t5p.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <87jztgwaur.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87jztgwaur.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:20:44PM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote: > Nam Cao writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote: > >> Nam Cao writes: > >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 10:11:25AM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote: > >> >> The default implementation of is_trap_insn() which RISC-V is using calls > >> >> is_swbp_insn(), which is doing what your patch does. Your patch does not > >> >> address the issue. > >> > > >> > is_swbp_insn() does this: > >> > > >> > #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C > >> > return (*insn & 0xffff) == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN; > >> > #else > >> > return *insn == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN; > >> > #endif > >> > > >> > ...so it doesn't even check for 32-bit ebreak if C extension is on. My patch > >> > is not the same. > >> > >> Ah, was too quick. > >> > >> AFAIU uprobes *always* uses c.ebreak when CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C is set, and > >> ebreak otherwise. That's the reason is_swbp_insn() is implemented like > >> that. > > > > That's what I understand too. > > > >> If that's not the case, there's a another bug, that your patches > >> addresses. > > > > I think it's a bug regardless. is_trap_insn() is used by uprobes to figure out > > if there is an instruction that generates trap exception, not just instructions > > that are "SWBP". The reason is because when there is a trap, but uprobes doesn't > > see a probe installed here, it needs is_trap_insn() to figure out if the trap > > is generated by ebreak from something else, or because the probe is just removed. > > In the latter case, uprobes will return back, because probe has already been removed, > > so it should be safe to do so. That's why I think the incorrect is_swbp_insn() > > would cause a hang, because uprobes incorrectly thinks there is no ebreak there, > > so it should be okay to go back, but there actually is. > > > > So, from my understanding, if uprobes encounter a 32-bit ebreak for any reason, > > the kernel would hang. I think your patch is a great addition nonetheless, but I > > am guessing that it only masks the problem by preventing uprobes from seeing the > > 32-bit ebreak in the specific test, not really solve it. So, if there is a 32-bit > > ebreak in userspace, the bug still causes the kernel to hang. > > > > I am still quite confident of my logic, so I would be very suprised if my fix > > doesn't solve the reported hang. Do you mind testing my patch? My potato of a > > laptop unfortunately cannot run the test :( > > Maybe I wasn't clear, sorry for that! I did take the patch for a spin, > and it did not solve this particular problem. Okay, thanks for the comfirmation! > When we're taking a trap from *kernel*mode, we should never deal with > uprobes at all. Have a look at uprobe_pre_sstep_notifier(), this > function returns 1, which then means that the trap handler exit > premature. > > The code you're referring to (called from uprobe_notify_resume()), and > will never be entered, because we're not exiting the trap to > userland. Have a look in kernel/entry/common.c (search for > e.g. TIF_UPROBE). I will think about this a bit and answer later. I will answer the below part first. > Now, for your concern, which I see as a potential different bug. Not at > all related to my issue "trap from kernelmode touches uprobe > incorrectly"; A "random" ebreak from *userland* is trapped, when uprobes > is enabled will set the kernel in a hang. I suggest you construct try to > write a simple program to reproduce this! > > I had a quick look in the uprobe handling code, and AFAIU the was used > when installing the uprobe as an additional check, and when searching > for an active uprobe. I'm still a bit puzzled how the issue you're > describing could trigger. A reproducer would help! I have just produced the problem, using this small program: .global _start _start: addi x0, x1, 0 addi x0, x1, 1 addi x0, x1, 2 .option push .option arch, -c ebreak .option pop ecall Compile that with riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc test.s -nostdlib -static -o ebreak And setup uprobes by: mount -t tracefs nodev /sys/kernel/tracing/ echo "p /ebreak:0x0000010c" > /sys/kernel/tracing/uprobe_events echo 1 > /sys/kernel/tracing/events/uprobes/enable (obviously you would have to edit the offset value to be _start symbol of your binary) Then I execute the program, and the kernel loop indefinitely (it keeps going in and out of exception handler). Then I apply my patch, then the kernel doesn't loop anymore. So I think it is a valid issue, and I will send a proper patch to fix this. Best regards, Nam