Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-134055-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:55:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return
 probe
Message-ID: <20240406175558.GC3060@redhat.com>
References: <20240403230937.c3bd47ee47c102cd89713ee8@kernel.org>
 <CAEf4BzZ2RFfz8PNgJ4ENZ0us4uX=DWhYFimXdtWms-VvGXOjgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240404095829.ec5db177f29cd29e849169fa@kernel.org>
 <CAEf4BzYH60TwvBipHWB_kUqZZ6D-iUVnnFsBv06imRikK3o-bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240405005405.9bcbe5072d2f32967501edb3@kernel.org>
 <20240404161108.GG7153@redhat.com>
 <20240405102203.825c4a2e9d1c2be5b2bffe96@kernel.org>
 <Zg-8r63tPSkuhN7p@krava>
 <20240405110230.GA22839@redhat.com>
 <20240406120536.57374198f3f45e809d7e4efa@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240406120536.57374198f3f45e809d7e4efa@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 04/06, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:02:30 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > With or without this patch userpace can also do
> >
> > 	foo() { <-- retprobe1
> > 		bar() {
> > 			jump to xol_area
> > 		}
> > 	}
> >
> > handle_trampoline() will handle retprobe1.
>
> This is OK because the execution path has been changed to trampoline,

Agreed, in this case the misuse is more clear. But please see below.

> but the above will continue running bar() after sys_uretprobe().

.. and most probably crash

> > sigreturn() can be "improved" too. Say, it could validate sigcontext->ip
> > and return -EINVAL if this addr is not valid. But why?
>
> Because sigreturn() never returns, but sys_uretprobe() will return.

You mean, sys_uretprobe() returns to the next insn after syscall.

Almost certainly yes, but this is not necessarily true. If one of consumers
changes regs->sp sys_uretprobe() "returns" to another location, just like
sys_rt_sigreturn().

That said.

Masami, it is not that I am trying to prove that you are "wrong" ;) No.

I see your points even if I am biased, I understand that my objections are
not 100% "fair".

I am just trying to explain why, rightly or not, I care much less about the
abuse of sys_uretprobe().

Thanks!

Oleg.