Re: Crash when attaching uretprobes to processes running in Docker

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:11 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/14, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:40 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > But, unlike sys_uretprobe(), sys_rt_sigreturn() is old, so the existing
> > > setups must know that sigreturn() should be respected...
> >
> > someday sys_uretprobe will be old as well ;) FWIW, systemd allowlisted
> > sys_uretprobe, see [0]
>
> And I agree! ;)
>
> I mean, I'd personally prefer to do nothing and wait until userspace figures
> out that we have another "special" syscall.
>
> But can we do it? I simply do not know. Can we ignore this (valid) bug report?
>

Seems wrong for kernel to try to guess whether some syscall is
filtered by some policy or not (though maybe I'm misunderstanding the
details and it's kernel-originated problem?). Seems like a recipe for
more problems.

Nothing is really fundamentally broken. Some piece of software needs
an upgraded library to not disable the kernel's special syscall (just
like sys_rt_sigreturn, nothing "new" here, really). Users can't do
uprobing in such broken setups (but not in general), seems like a good
incentive for everyone to push for the right thing here: fixed up to
date software.

> Oleg.
>