Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly under SRCU protection

Breno Leitao
2024-11-06T12:03:39Z

Hello Andrii,

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:45:59AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> uprobe->register_rwsem is one of a few big bottlenecks to scalability of
> uprobes, so we need to get rid of it to improve uprobe performance and
> multi-CPU scalability.
>
> First, we turn uprobe's consumer list to a typical doubly-linked list
> and utilize existing RCU-aware helpers for traversing such lists, as
> well as adding and removing elements from it.
>
> For entry uprobes we already have SRCU protection active since before
> uprobe lookup. For uretprobe we keep refcount, guaranteeing that uprobe
> won't go away from under us, but we add SRCU protection around consumer
> list traversal.

I am seeing the following message in a kernel with RCU_PROVE_LOCKING:

kernel/events/uprobes.c:937 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!

It seems the SRCU is not held, when coming from mmap_region ->
uprobe_mmap. Here is the message I got in my debug kernel. (sorry for
not decoding it, but, the stack trace is clear enough).

WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01152-gc688a96c432e #26 Tainted: G W E N
-----------------------------
kernel/events/uprobes.c:938 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!

other info that might help us debug this:

rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
3 locks held by env/441330:
#0: ffff00021c1bc508 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: vm_mmap_pgoff+0x84/0x1d0
#1: ffff800089f3ab48 (&uprobes_mmap_mutex[i]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: uprobe_mmap+0x20c/0x548
#2: ffff0004e564c528 (&uprobe->consumer_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: filter_chain+0x30/0xe8

stack backtrace:
CPU: 4 UID: 34133 PID: 441330 Comm: env Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W E N 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01152-gc688a96c432e #26
Tainted: [W]=WARN, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE, [N]=TEST
Hardware name: Quanta S7GM 20S7GCU0010/S7G MB (CG1), BIOS 3D22 07/03/2024
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x10c/0x198
show_stack+0x24/0x38
__dump_stack+0x28/0x38
dump_stack_lvl+0x74/0xa8
dump_stack+0x18/0x28
lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x178/0x2c8
filter_chain+0xdc/0xe8
uprobe_mmap+0x2e0/0x548
mmap_region+0x510/0x988
do_mmap+0x444/0x528
vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf8/0x1d0
ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x184/0x2d8

That said, it seems we want to hold the SRCU, before reaching the
filter_chain(). I hacked a bit, and adding the lock in uprobe_mmap()
solves the problem, but, I might be missing something, since I am not familiar
with this code.

How does the following patch look like?

commit 1bd7bcf03031ceca86fdddd8be2e5500497db29f
Author: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Date: Mon Nov 4 06:53:31 2024 -0800

uprobes: Get SRCU lock before traverseing the list

list_for_each_entry_srcu() is being called without holding the lock,
which causes LOCKDEP (when enabled with RCU_PROVING) to complain such
as:

kernel/events/uprobes.c:937 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!

Get the SRCU uprobes_srcu lock before calling filter_chain(), which
needs to have the SRCU lock hold, since it is going to call
list_for_each_entry_srcu().

Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Fixes: cc01bd044e6a ("uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly under SRCU protection")

diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 4b52cb2ae6d62..cc9d4ddeea9a6 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1391,6 +1391,7 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
struct list_head tmp_list;
struct uprobe *uprobe, *u;
struct inode *inode;
+ int srcu_idx;

if (no_uprobe_events())
return 0;
@@ -1409,6 +1410,7 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)

mutex_lock(uprobes_mmap_hash(inode));
build_probe_list(inode, vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, &tmp_list);
+ srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
/*
* We can race with uprobe_unregister(), this uprobe can be already
* removed. But in this case filter_chain() must return false, all
@@ -1422,6 +1424,7 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
}
put_uprobe(uprobe);
}
+ srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
mutex_unlock(uprobes_mmap_hash(inode));

return 0;