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:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:02:26 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com,
        x86@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, cameron@moodycamel.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
        systemtap@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/21] kprobes: Unify kretprobe trampoline handlers
 and make kretprobe lockless
Message-Id: <20200903110226.8963179e6a7c978e2d56c595@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200903103954.68f0c97da57b3679169ce3a7@kernel.org>
References: <159870598914.1229682.15230803449082078353.stgit@devnote2>
        <20200901190808.GK29142@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20200902093739.8bd13603380951eaddbcd8a5@kernel.org>
        <20200902070226.GG2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20200902171755.b126672093a3c5d1b3a62a4f@kernel.org>
        <20200902093613.GY1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20200902221926.f5cae5b4ad00b8d8f9ad99c7@kernel.org>
        <20200902134252.GH1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20200903103954.68f0c97da57b3679169ce3a7@kernel.org>
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 Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:39:54 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:

> OK, I've confirmed that the lockdep warns on kretprobe from INT3
> with your fix. Of course make it lockless then warning is gone.
> But even without the lockless patch, this warning can be false-positive
> because we prohibit nested kprobe call, right?
> 
> If the kprobe user handler uses a spinlock, the spinlock is used
> only in that handler (and in the context between kprobe_busy_begin/end),
> it will be safe since the spinlock is not nested.
> But if the spinlock is shared with other context, it will be dangerous
> because it can be interrupted by NMI (including INT3). This also applied
> to the function which is called from kprobe user handlers, thus user
> has to take care of it.

Sorry, for noticing this point, I Cc'd to systemtap. Is systemtap taking
care of spinlock too?

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>