From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (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 D12D614C5AE; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736863670; cv=none; b=YCn9X7+Rl94CurwsyKcQWDFJQ8wn0zeA/B3rM0e3fJCnc1oIzdbFee6YwmQq+1DQvOiS4jA92AyXFaLCmcIhgGWc0EetDKh7TatoZbHbF5ZMghFYhOad2ThGrXHh6Jh5uI1Q/aaiTZM2nxz8bDDiSBjFcXDONWSwOJ7ZjB7d0y8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736863670; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x3HZ52JnGpNmOl2AsLimmIqSvIJPVzeNT96X9YEjjJA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ez3kcN4HyONcCAXyvC/rlQJLA4sV07osXIsrFAiKMZwLCdnU4QaXtVxSyRmCL6KQ6u6ahSQGzM8SPeVMGqVgmsJwtY7Ak9ECVUu3iqmQuzyzm1hxPns4ee0EouvzdKPV5VAoem4VDGjHFJopWCMGV8d0Xwc8hDiWbqb6oYOOLs0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=Sy44sGI3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="Sy44sGI3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=VpmG8m+dTj+FMSiyZTtiB4JAm/QbZbCKXjyCc6K+NFM=; b=Sy44sGI3677yOp60i6Zn8UxdDb SQBG8HAy5t93gOwd8yzKa+r/vfoXqH4bz+XtfhXSmQIhf6UZ3DfJd++77r9HqsqrivaQUSsNQjhdQ mGd6PW0YKpKUyLvJYKUT6j7+mWwSouGCc8MmbMTgS7+o0k23MHYL5DJUW27CTX2QscVuzEi8dB+PP wMnNAI757Z6HdnWIWHjj2dAnaDqwAwihxbclt5SIRb07vZqVQIhITiSL75VamS6C/ATBgMEaekSJi 0mLBDR2CJbdxSbKmGetBf6oBL8ysmL2CRI7rJbZfMImuiwFw8q2eVjGcx42s/6+Yng6PTm8K9EzBF NGf9MPrQ==; Received: from 77-249-17-89.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.89] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tXhZq-0000000ASxi-32oe; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:07:31 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83C7B30063F; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:07:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:07:29 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Jiri Olsa , Aleksa Sarai , Eyal Birger , mhiramat@kernel.org, linux-kernel , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, BPF-dev-list , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , rafi@rbk.io, Shmulik Ladkani Subject: Re: Crash when attaching uretprobes to processes running in Docker Message-ID: <20250114140729.GQ5388@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20250110.152323-sassy.torch.lavish.rent-vKX3ul5B3qyi@cyphar.com> <20250114104215.GD8362@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20250114110149.GB19816@redhat.com> <20250114120235.GP5388@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20250114123257.GD19816@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250114123257.GD19816@redhat.com> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 01:32:58PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Sorry, I don't understand... Perhaps because I am enjoying my state after > dentist appointment ;) For some reason I thought to remember that parent thread would spawn restricted child, however: > OK, suppose we have > > void start_SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT(void) > { > // in particular nacks __NR_uretprobe > seccomp(SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT, ...); > } > > and we want to add uretprobe to this function. > > In this case prepare_uretprobe() can't know that sys_uretprobe() won't > work when this function returns? Indeed. But any further probes placed after seccomp() would be able to, and installing trampolines for them would be a waste, no?