From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: Do not warn on EEXIST or ENOENT
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:17:20 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ca78b1b1-e6e3-9a98-7919-a68389933829@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7297f336-70e5-82d3-f8d3-27f08c7d1548@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On 2021/06/27 0:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/06/26 23:18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 22:58:45 +0900
>> Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> syzbot is hitting WARN_ON_ONCE() at tracepoint_add_func() [1], but
>>> func_add() returning -EEXIST and func_remove() returning -ENOENT are
>>> not kernel bugs that can justify crashing the system.
>>
>> There should be no path that registers a tracepoint twice. That's a bug
>> in the kernel. Looking at the link below, I see the backtrace:
>>
>> Call Trace:
>> tracepoint_probe_register_prio kernel/tracepoint.c:369 [inline]
>> tracepoint_probe_register+0x9c/0xe0 kernel/tracepoint.c:389
>> __bpf_probe_register kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2154 [inline]
>> bpf_probe_register+0x15a/0x1c0 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2159
>> bpf_raw_tracepoint_open+0x34a/0x720 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:2878
>> __do_sys_bpf+0x2586/0x4f40 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4435
>> do_syscall_64+0x3a/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:47
>>
>> So BPF is allowing the user to register the same tracepoint more than
>> once? That looks to be a bug in the BPF code where it shouldn't be
>> allowing user space to register the same tracepoint multiple times.
>
> I didn't catch your question.
>
> (1) func_add() can reject an attempt to add same tracepoint multiple times
> by returning -EINVAL to the caller.
Sorry, s/EINVAL/EEXIST/g on (1) (2) (6).
> (2) But tracepoint_add_func() (the caller of func_add()) is calling WARN_ON_ONCE()
> if func_add() returned -EINVAL.
> (3) And tracepoint_add_func() is triggerable via request from userspace.
> (4) tracepoint_probe_register_prio() serializes tracepoint_add_func() call
> triggered by concurrent request from userspace using tracepoints_mutex mutex.
> (5) But tracepoint_add_func() does not check whether same tracepoint multiple
> is already registered before calling func_add().
> (6) As a result, tracepoint_add_func() receives -EINVAL from func_add(), and
> calls WARN_ON_ONCE() and the system crashes due to panic_on_warn == 1.
>
> Why this is a bug in the BPF code? The BPF code is not allowing userspace to
> register the same tracepoint multiple times. I think that tracepoint_add_func()
> is stupid enough to crash the kernel instead of rejecting when an attempt to
> register the same tracepoint multiple times is made.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-26 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20210626135845.4080-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
2021-06-26 14:18 ` [PATCH] tracepoint: Do not warn on EEXIST or ENOENT Steven Rostedt
2021-06-26 15:13 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-06-26 15:17 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2021-06-26 15:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-06-26 18:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-06-26 18:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-06-26 23:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-06-27 1:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-06-27 2:52 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ca78b1b1-e6e3-9a98-7919-a68389933829@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=krisman@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rric@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).