Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165189881197.175864.14757002789194211860.stgit@devnote2>
 <20220524192301.0c2ab08a@gandalf.local.home> <20220526232530.cb7d0aed0c60625ef093a735@kernel.org>
 <Yo+TWcfpyHy55Il5@krava> <20220527011434.9e8c47d1b40f549baf2cf52a@kernel.org>
 <YpFMQOjvV/tgwsuK@krava> <20220528101928.5118395f2d97142f7625b761@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220528101928.5118395f2d97142f7625b761@kernel.org>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jun 2022 12:21:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZdPc3HVUwtuyifaPwz_=9VtykafJsSsvDbYonLA=K=2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rethook: Reject getting a rethook if RCU is not watching
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:19 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 00:10:08 +0200
> Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 01:14:34AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 May 2022 16:49:26 +0200
> > > Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:25:30PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 24 May 2022 19:23:01 -0400
> > > > > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat,  7 May 2022 13:46:52 +0900
> > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this expected to go through the BPF tree?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, since rethook (fprobe) is currently used only from eBPF.
> > > > > Jiri, can you check this is good for your test case?
> > > >
> > > > sure I'll test it.. can't see the original email,
> > > > perhaps I wasn't cc-ed.. but I'll find it
> > >
> > > Here it is. I Cc-ed your @kernel.org address.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/165189881197.175864.14757002789194211860.stgit@devnote2/T/#u
> > >
> > > >
> > > > is this also related to tracing 'idle' functions,
> > > > as discussed in here?
> > > >   https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220515203653.4039075-1-jolsa@kernel.org/
> > >
> > > Ah, yes. So this may not happen with the above patch, but for the
> > > hardening (ensuring it is always safe), I would like to add this.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > because that's the one I can reproduce.. but I can
> > > > certainly try that with your change as well
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> >
> > it did not help the idle warning as expected, but I did not
> > see any problems running bpf tests on top of this
>
> Oops, right. I forgot this is only for the rethook, not protect the
> fprobe handlers, since fprobe code doesn't involve the RCU code (it
> depends on ftrace's check). Sorry about that.
> Hmm, I need to add a test code for this issue, but that could be
> solved by your noninstr patch.
>


Masami,

It's not clear to me, do you intend to send a new revision with some
more tests or this patch as is ready to go into bpf tree?


> Thank you,
>
> >
> > jirka
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > jirka
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -- Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since the rethook_recycle() will involve the call_rcu() for reclaiming
> > > > > > > the rethook_instance, the rethook must be set up at the RCU available
> > > > > > > context (non idle). This rethook_recycle() in the rethook trampoline
> > > > > > > handler is inevitable, thus the RCU available check must be done before
> > > > > > > setting the rethook trampoline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This adds a rcu_is_watching() check in the rethook_try_get() so that
> > > > > > > it will return NULL if it is called when !rcu_is_watching().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: 54ecbe6f1ed5 ("rethook: Add a generic return hook")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  kernel/trace/rethook.c |    9 +++++++++
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c
> > > > > > > index b56833700d23..c69d82273ce7 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c
> > > > > > > @@ -154,6 +154,15 @@ struct rethook_node *rethook_try_get(struct rethook *rh)
> > > > > > >     if (unlikely(!handler))
> > > > > > >             return NULL;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +   /*
> > > > > > > +    * This expects the caller will set up a rethook on a function entry.
> > > > > > > +    * When the function returns, the rethook will eventually be reclaimed
> > > > > > > +    * or released in the rethook_recycle() with call_rcu().
> > > > > > > +    * This means the caller must be run in the RCU-availabe context.
> > > > > > > +    */
> > > > > > > +   if (unlikely(!rcu_is_watching()))
> > > > > > > +           return NULL;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >     fn = freelist_try_get(&rh->pool);
> > > > > > >     if (!fn)
> > > > > > >             return NULL;
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
>
>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>