public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: "Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com" <Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: x86/kprobes: kretprobe fails to triggered if kprobe at function entry is not optimized (trigger by int3 breakpoint)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:31:58 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200826173158.19bc6f5c3b05fbb3f6d0aa3e@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200825120911.GX1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Hi Peter,

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:09:11 +0200
peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> 
> @@ -1934,50 +1884,28 @@ unsigned long __weak arch_deref_entry_point(void *entry)
>  static int pre_handler_kretprobe(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
>  	struct kretprobe *rp = container_of(p, struct kretprobe, kp);
> -	unsigned long hash, flags = 0;
>  	struct kretprobe_instance *ri;
> +	struct llist_node *llist;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * To avoid deadlocks, prohibit return probing in NMI contexts,
> -	 * just skip the probe and increase the (inexact) 'nmissed'
> -	 * statistical counter, so that the user is informed that
> -	 * something happened:
> -	 */
> -	if (unlikely(in_nmi())) {
> +	llist = llist_del_first(&rp->free_instances);
> +	if (!llist) {
>  		rp->nmissed++;
>  		return 0;
>  	}

Would we need a lock around llist_del_first(&rp->free_instance) here?

linux/llist.h said,

 * Cases where locking is not needed:
 * If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add can be
 * used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in consumers simultaneously
 * without locking. Also a single consumer can use llist_del_first while
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 * multiple producers simultaneously use llist_add, without any locking.
 *
 * Cases where locking is needed:
 * If we have multiple consumers with llist_del_first used in one consumer, and
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 * llist_del_first or llist_del_all used in other consumers, then a lock is
 * needed.

pre_handler_kretprobe() can be invoked simultaneously on the different CPUs
if those are calling the same probed function.


Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-08-26  8:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-24 12:02 x86/kprobes: kretprobe fails to triggered if kprobe at function entry is not optimized (trigger by int3 breakpoint) Eddy_Wu
2020-08-24 14:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-24 16:18   ` Eddy_Wu
2020-08-24 18:15   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-25  7:36     ` peterz
2020-08-24 15:54 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-24 16:41   ` Eddy_Wu
2020-08-25  6:15     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-25  8:33       ` Eddy_Wu
2020-08-25 11:06       ` [PATCH] kprobes/x86: Fixes NMI context check on x86 kernel test robot
2020-08-25 12:09       ` x86/kprobes: kretprobe fails to triggered if kprobe at function entry is not optimized (trigger by int3 breakpoint) peterz
2020-08-25 13:15         ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-25 13:30           ` peterz
2020-08-25 13:59             ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-25 14:15               ` peterz
2020-08-25 14:10             ` peterz
2020-08-25 14:19               ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-27  9:02           ` peterz
2020-08-26  7:07         ` Eddy_Wu
2020-08-26  8:22           ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26  9:06             ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 10:00               ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 10:25                 ` peterz
2020-08-26 13:36                   ` Eddy_Wu
2020-08-26 13:51                     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26  9:01           ` peterz
2020-08-26  9:21             ` peterz
2020-08-26  8:31         ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2020-08-25 12:20       ` [PATCH] kprobes/x86: Fixes NMI context check on x86 kernel test robot
2020-08-25 12:25       ` kernel test robot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200826173158.19bc6f5c3b05fbb3f6d0aa3e@kernel.org \
    --to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox