Re: [PATCH v2] tracing/uprobe: Add missing PID filter for uretprobe

Jiri Olsa
2024-09-02T09:11:40Z

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:51:12AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 6:34 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:12:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > The whole discussion was very confusing (yes, I too contributed to the
> > > confusion ;), let me try to summarise.
> > >
> > > > U(ret)probes are designed to be filterable using the PID, which is the
> > > > second parameter in the perf_event_open syscall. Currently, uprobe works
> > > > well with the filtering, but uretprobe is not affected by it.
> > >
> > > And this is correct. But the CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS code in __uprobe_perf_func()
> > > misunderstands the purpose of uprobe_perf_filter().
> > >
> > > Lets forget about BPF for the moment. It is not that uprobe_perf_filter()
> > > does the filtering by the PID, it doesn't. We can simply kill this function
> > > and perf will work correctly. The perf layer in __uprobe_perf_func() does
> > > the filtering when perf_event->hw.target != NULL.
> > >
> > > So why does uprobe_perf_filter() call uprobe_perf_filter()? Not to avoid
> > > the __uprobe_perf_func() call (as the BPF code assumes), but to trigger
> > > unapply_uprobe() in handler_chain().
> > >
> > > Suppose you do, say,
> > >
> > > $ perf probe -x /path/to/libc some_hot_function
> > > or
> > > $ perf probe -x /path/to/libc some_hot_function%return
> > > then
> > > $perf record -e ... -p 1
> > >
> > > to trace the usage of some_hot_function() in the init process. Everything
> > > will work just fine if we kill uprobe_perf_filter()->uprobe_perf_filter().
> > >
> > > But. If INIT forks a child C, dup_mm() will copy int3 installed by perf.
> > > So the child C will hit this breakpoint and cal handle_swbp/etc for no
> > > reason every time it calls some_hot_function(), not good.
> > >
> > > That is why uprobe_perf_func() calls uprobe_perf_filter() which returns
> > > UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE when C hits the breakpoint. handler_chain() will
> > > call unapply_uprobe() which will remove this breakpoint from C->mm.
> >
> > thanks for the info, I wasn't aware this was the intention
> >
> > uprobe_multi does not have perf event mechanism/check, so it's using
> > the filter function to do the process filtering.. which is not working
> > properly as you pointed out earlier
>
> So this part I don't completely get. I get that using task->mm
> comparison is wrong due to CLONE_VM, but why same_thread_group() check
> is wrong? I.e., why task->signal comparison is wrong?

the way I understand it is that we take the group leader task and
store it in bpf_uprobe_multi_link::task

but it can exit while the rest of the threads is still running so
the uprobe_multi_link_filter won't match them (leader->mm is NULL)

Oleg suggested change below (in addition to same_thread_group change)
to take that in account

jirka

---
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 98e395f1baae..9e6b390aa6da 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -3235,9 +3235,23 @@ uprobe_multi_link_filter(struct uprobe_consumer *con, enum uprobe_filter_ctx ctx
struct mm_struct *mm)
{
struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
+ struct task_struct *task, *t;
+ bool ret = false;

uprobe = container_of(con, struct bpf_uprobe, consumer);
- return uprobe->link->task->mm == mm;
+ task = uprobe->link->task;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ for_each_thread(task, t) {
+ struct mm_struct *mm = READ_ONCE(t->mm);
+ if (mm) {
+ ret = t->mm == mm;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ return ret;
}

static int