From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] kprobes crashing because of preempt count
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:12:03 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0D1EE3.6080607@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309440213.26417.76.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
(2011/06/30 22:23), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hi Masami,
>
> While testing some changes in -rt against kprobes, I hit a crash that
> exists in mainline. If we stick a probe in a location that reads
> preempt_count, we corrupt the kernel itself.
>
> Reason is that the kprobe single step handler disables preemption, sets
> up the single step, returns to the code to execute that single step,
> takes the trap, enables preemption, and continues.
>
> The issue, is because we disabled preemption in the trap, returned, then
> enabled it again in another trap, we just changed what the code sees
> that does that single step.
>
> If we add a kprobe on a inc_preempt_count() call:
>
> [ preempt_count = 0 ]
>
> ld preempt_count, %eax <<--- trap
>
> <trap>
> preempt_disable();
> [ preempt_count = 1]
> setup_singlestep();
> <trap return>
>
> [ preempt_count = 1 ]
>
> ld preempt_count, %eax
>
> [ %eax = 1 ]
>
> <trap>
> post_kprobe_handler()
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> [ preempt_count = 0 ]
> <trap return>
>
> [ %eax = 1 ]
>
> add %eax,1
>
> [ %eax = 2 ]
>
> st %eax, preempt_count
>
> [ preempt_count = 2 ]
>
>
> We just caused preempt count to increment twice when it should have only
> incremented once, and this screws everything else up.
Ah! right!
> Do we really need to have preemption disabled throughout this? Is it
> because we don't want to migrate or call schedule? Not sure what the
> best way to fix this is. Perhaps we add a kprobe_preempt_disable() that
> is checked as well?
I think the best way to do that is just removing preemption disabling
code, because
- breakpoint exception itself disables interrupt (at least on x86)
- While single stepping, interrupts also be disabled.
(BTW, theoretically, boosted and optimized kprobes shouldn't have
this problem, because those doesn't execute single-stepping)
So, I think there is no reason of disabling preemption.
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-01 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-30 13:23 [BUG] kprobes crashing because of preempt count Steven Rostedt
2011-06-30 15:51 ` [RFC][PATCH] kprobes: Add separate preempt_disabling for kprobes Steven Rostedt
2011-06-30 16:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-30 16:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-06-30 19:40 ` Jason Baron
2011-06-30 19:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-06-30 21:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-01 1:22 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 1:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-01 1:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 5:09 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 11:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 12:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-01 12:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-01 13:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 13:14 ` [RFC PATCH -tip ] [BUGFIX] x86: Remove preempt disabling from kprobes Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 13:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-01 13:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-03 2:05 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-02 6:09 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2011-07-01 1:12 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2011-07-01 1:33 ` [BUG] kprobes crashing because of preempt count Steven Rostedt
2011-07-01 2:23 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 11:36 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2011-07-01 12:01 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01 13:03 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2011-07-01 13:19 ` Steven Rostedt
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=4E0D1EE3.6080607@hitachi.com \
--to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com \
/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