Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:41:23 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To:     peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     "Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com" <Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
        "anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "cameron@moodycamel.com" <cameron@moodycamel.com>,
        "oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "paulmck@kernel.org" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] kprobes: Remove kretprobe hash
Message-Id: <20200828234123.f033d15e4d345c03eef97e88@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200828141917.GE1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200827161237.889877377@infradead.org>
        <20200827161754.359432340@infradead.org>
        <7df0a1af432040d9908517661c32dc34@trendmicro.com>
        <20200828225113.9541a5f67a3bcb17c4ce930c@kernel.org>
        <23d43cfb12c54a1fbc766ea313ecb5a6@trendmicro.com>
        <20200828141917.GE1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:19:17 +0200
peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 02:11:18PM +0000, Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com wrote:
> > > From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > OK, schedule function will be the key. I guess the senario is..
> > >
> > > 1) kretporbe replace the return address with kretprobe_trampoline on task1's kernel stack
> > > 2) the task1 forks task2 before returning to the kretprobe_trampoline
> > > 3) while copying the process with the kernel stack, task2->kretprobe_instances.first = NULL
> > 
> > I think new process created by fork/clone uses a brand new kernel
> > stack? I thought only user stack are copied.  Otherwise any process
> > launch should crash in the same way
> 
> I was under the same impression, we create a brand new stack-frame for
> the new task, this 'fake' frame we can schedule into.
> 
> It either points to ret_from_fork() for new user tasks, or
> kthread_frame_init() for kernel threads.

Ah sorry, then it's my misreading... anyway, I could reproduce the crash with
probing on schedule(). Hmm, it is better to dump the current comm with
BUG().

Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>