Re: [PATCH resend 6/8] tracing/ftrace: Add might_fault check to syscall probes

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

On 2024-10-28 13:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30 2024 at 15:23, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c b/kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c
>> index a3d8ac00793e..0430890cbb42 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c
>> @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static void ftrace_syscall_enter(void *data, struct pt_regs *regs, long id)
>>   	 * Syscall probe called with preemption enabled, but the ring
>>   	 * buffer and per-cpu data require preemption to be disabled.
>>   	 */
>> +	might_fault();
>>   	guard(preempt_notrace)();
> 
> I find it odd that the might_fault() check is in all the implementations
> and not in the tracepoint itself:
> 
>      if (syscall) {
>          might_fault();
>   	rcu_read_unlock_trace();
>     } else ...
> 
> That's where I would have expected it to be.

You raise a good point: we should also add a might_fault() check in
__DO_TRACE() in the syscall case, so we can catch incorrect use of the
syscall tracepoint even if no probes are registered to it.

I've added the might_fault() in each tracer syscall probe to make sure
a tracer don't end up registering a faultable probe on a tracepoint
protected with preempt_disable by mistake. It validates that the tracers
are using the tracepoint registration as expected.

I'll prepare separate a patch adding this and will add it to this
series.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>          tglx

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com