public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 11:23:27 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0D2F9F.9040102@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309484007.26417.121.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

(2011/07/01 10:33), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 10:12 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I guess the above point is critical. If interrupts are disabled through
> out the entire walk through, then we are fine, as that just guarantees
> preemption is disabled anyway. But! if it does get enabled anywhere,
> then we will have issues as the two traps require using the same state
> data that is stored per cpu.

That should be a bug, or kprobe's assumption was so fragile (and must
be rewritten.)

Anyway, kprobe_handler() in arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c expects that
it is executed in a critical section, and it ensures that if there
is no other kprobes running on that processor. (however, as you can
see in reenter_kprobe(), if the breakpoint hits under single stepping,
it calls BUG() because kprobes guess that someone put another kprobe
inside kprobe's critical section)

>> (BTW, theoretically, boosted and optimized kprobes shouldn't have
>> this problem, because those doesn't execute single-stepping)
> 
> Does the optimized kprobes even disable preemption?

Yeah, just while calling its handler, since someone will
call may_sleep() in it... Anyway, nowadays it disables
interruption for emulating breakpoint behavior.

>>
>> So, I think there is no reason of disabling preemption.
> 
> That would be the best solution.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com

  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-01  2:23 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 ` [BUG] kprobes crashing because of preempt count Masami Hiramatsu
2011-07-01  1:33   ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-01  2:23     ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
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=4E0D2F9F.9040102@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