Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs)

Dmitry Safonov
2016-08-26T14:43:08Z

2016-08-26 17:32 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2016-08-26 2:00 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>:
>>> On August 25, 2016 3:53:43 PM PDT, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>2016-08-25 23:49 GMT+03:00 H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>:
>>>>> On August 25, 2016 8:21:07 AM PDT, Dmitry Safonov
>>>><dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>This patches set is cleanly RFC and is not supposed to be applied.
>>>>>>Also for RFC time it builds only on x86_64.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, in a mail thread Oleg told that it would be worth to introduce
>>>>>>vm_file
>>>>>>for vdso mappings as currently uprobes can not be placed on vDSO VMAs
>>>>>>[1].
>>>>>>In this patches set I introduce in-kernel filesystem for vdso files.
>>>>>>After patches vDSO VMA now has inode and is just a private file
>>>>>>mapping:
>>>>>>7ffcc4b2b000-7ffcc4b2d000 r--p 00000000 00:00 0
>>>>>> [vvar]
>>>>>>7ffcc4b2d000-7ffcc4b2f000 r-xp 00000000 00:09 18
>>>>>> [vdso]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then I introduce interface in uprobe_events to insert uprobes in
>>>>vdso.
>>>>>>FWIW:
>>>>>> [~]# cd kernel/linux
>>>>>> [linux]# readelf --syms arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso64.so
>>>>>>Symbol table '.dynsym' contains 11 entries:
>>>>>> Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name
>>>>>> 0: 0000000000000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND
>>>>>> 1: 0000000000000470 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 8
>>>>>>2: 00000000000008d0 885 FUNC WEAK DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>clock_gettime@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>>3: 0000000000000c50 472 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>__vdso_gettimeofday@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>>4: 0000000000000c50 472 FUNC WEAK DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>gettimeofday@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>>5: 0000000000000e30 21 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>__vdso_time@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>> 6: 0000000000000e30 21 FUNC WEAK DEFAULT 12
>>>>time@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>>7: 00000000000008d0 885 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>__vdso_clock_gettime@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>> 8: 0000000000000000 0 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS LINUX_2.6
>>>>>>9: 0000000000000e50 41 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>__vdso_getcpu@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>>10: 0000000000000e50 41 FUNC WEAK DEFAULT 12
>>>>>>getcpu@@LINUX_2.6
>>>>>> [~]# cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
>>>>>> [tracing]# echo 'p:clock_gettime :vdso:/64:0x8d0' > uprobe_events
>>>>>> [tracing]# echo 'p:gettimeofday :vdso:/64:0xc50' >> uprobe_events
>>>>>> [tracing]# echo 'p:time :vdso:/64:0xe30' >> uprobe_events
>>>>>> [tracing]# echo 1 > events/uprobes/enable
>>>>>> [tracing]# su test # it has UID=1001
>>>>>> [tracing]$ date
>>>>>> Thu Aug 25 17:19:29 MSK 2016
>>>>>> [tracing]$ exit
>>>>>> [tracing]# cat trace
>>>>>> # tracer: nop
>>>>>> #
>>>>>> # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 175/175 #P:4
>>>>>> #
>>>>>> # _-----=> irqs-off
>>>>>> # / _----=> need-resched
>>>>>> # | / _---=> hardirq/softirq
>>>>>> # || / _--=> preempt-depth
>>>>>> # ||| / delay
>>>>>> # TASK-PID CPU# |||| TIMESTAMP FUNCTION
>>>>>> # | | | |||| | |
>>>>>> bash-11560 [001] d... 316.470236: time:
>>>>(0x7ffcacebae30)
>>>>>> bash-11560 [001] d... 316.471436: gettimeofday:
>>>>(0x7ffcacebac50)
>>>>>> bash-11560 [001] d... 316.477550: time:
>>>>(0x7ffcacebae30)
>>>>>> bash-11560 [001] d... 316.477655: time:
>>>>(0x7ffcacebae30)
>>>>>> mktemp-11568 [001] d... 316.479589: gettimeofday:
>>>>(0x7ffc603f0c50)
>>>>>> date-11571 [001] d... 316.481890: clock_gettime:
>>>>(0x7ffec9db58d0)
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If this approach will be decided as fine, I will prepare a better
>>>>>>version,
>>>>>>fixing the following things:
>>>>>>o put vdsofs in generic fs/* dir
>>>>>>o support other archs and vdso blobs
>>>>>>o remove BUG_ON()'s and UID==1001 check
>>>>>>o remove extern's and use headers only
>>>>>>o refactor code in create_trace_uprobe()
>>>>>>o add some state to (struct trace_uprobe), so i.e., `cat
>>>>uprobe_events`
>>>>>>will
>>>>>> print those uprobes as vdso-based
>>>>>>o document this interface in Documentation/trace/uprobetracer.txt
>>>>>>o prepare nice patches set?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, opinions? Is it worth to add something like this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/12/346
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dmitry Safonov (3):
>>>>>> x86/vdso: create vdso file, use it for mapping
>>>>>> uprobe: drop isdigit() check in create_trace_uprobe
>>>>>> uprobe: add vdso support
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>>>>>>Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
>>>>>>Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>>>>>>Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
>>>>>>Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>>>>>Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>>>>>>Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
>>>>>>Cc: x86@kernel.org
>>>>>>Cc: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>arch/x86/entry/vdso/vma.c | 148
>>>>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 50 +++++++++++----
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there is a lot to be said for this idea. However, a private
>>>>mapping is definitely wrong for the vvar data; for the vdso code it
>>>>could be considered either way I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks on your reply.
>>>>As you could see, I preserved pure mapping of pfn for vvar:
>>>>7ffcc4b2b000-7ffcc4b2d000 r--p 00000000 00:00 0
>>>> [vvar]
>>>>7ffcc4b2d000-7ffcc4b2f000 r-xp 00000000 00:09 18
>>>> [vdso]
>>>>(no inode number).
>>>>I also think it would be useless to do the same to vvar as it
>>>>has just data and there is no point in probing it.
>>>
>>> Well, it would things like mremap() just work and so on. Let's get rid of special cases if we are.
>>
>> Well, for RFC it wouldn't move context.vdso pointer on mremap(),
>> but as RFC is for x86_64 only, it will work on it.
>> Anyway, I don't think it would be hard to fix and make mremap() work on
>> other archs on post-RFC.
>>
>> The only corner-case I see for now is that /proc/self/map_files/<vdso_range>
>> will point to [vdso] which is broken link. But one could read this file
>> and dump/read vdso blob.
>> So, in the other words: if some program assumes that /proc/self/map_files/*
>> should always point to correct file, it may be confused. Not sure, maybe
>> it would be confused by orphane-file mappings, so having dangling link
>> there is just fine.
>
> I don't see anything a priori wrong with having map_files point
> somewhere, but it could be worth special casing it for special
> mappings to preserve existing behavior (no file at all).

Yep, that could be easily done, will do.
Anyway, just curious - what may it break?

Thanks on the reply, Andy. Does the patches set look sane for you?

--
Dmitry