Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] fprobe: make fprobe_kprobe_handler recursion free

[Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com>]

Hi, yafang.

You're right, it should do the unlock before return for the sake of
sanity. (Please
ignore the last misleading reply :)

Will send a new patch to fix it.

Thanks
Ze

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:17 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:45 AM Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Current implementation calls kprobe related functions before doing
> > ftrace recursion check in fprobe_kprobe_handler, which opens door
> > to kernel crash due to stack recursion if preempt_count_{add, sub}
> > is traceable in kprobe_busy_{begin, end}.
> >
> > Things goes like this without this patch quoted from Steven:
> > "
> > fprobe_kprobe_handler() {
> >    kprobe_busy_begin() {
> >       preempt_disable() {
> >          preempt_count_add() {  <-- trace
> >             fprobe_kprobe_handler() {
> >                 [ wash, rinse, repeat, CRASH!!! ]
> > "
> >
> > By refactoring the common part out of fprobe_kprobe_handler and
> > fprobe_handler and call ftrace recursion detection at the very beginning,
> > the whole fprobe_kprobe_handler is free from recursion.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>
> > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/20230516071830.8190-3-zegao@tencent.com
> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> > index 9abb3905bc8e..097c740799ba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> > @@ -20,30 +20,22 @@ struct fprobe_rethook_node {
> >         char data[];
> >  };
> >
> > -static void fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> > -                          struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> > +static inline void __fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long
> > +               parent_ip, struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> >  {
> >         struct fprobe_rethook_node *fpr;
> >         struct rethook_node *rh = NULL;
> >         struct fprobe *fp;
> >         void *entry_data = NULL;
> > -       int bit, ret;
> > +       int ret;
> >
> >         fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops);
> > -       if (fprobe_disabled(fp))
> > -               return;
> > -
> > -       bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
> > -       if (bit < 0) {
> > -               fp->nmissed++;
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> >
> >         if (fp->exit_handler) {
> >                 rh = rethook_try_get(fp->rethook);
> >                 if (!rh) {
> >                         fp->nmissed++;
> > -                       goto out;
> > +                       return;
> >                 }
> >                 fpr = container_of(rh, struct fprobe_rethook_node, node);
> >                 fpr->entry_ip = ip;
> > @@ -61,23 +53,60 @@ static void fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> >                 else
> >                         rethook_hook(rh, ftrace_get_regs(fregs), true);
> >         }
> > -out:
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void fprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> > +               struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> > +{
> > +       struct fprobe *fp;
> > +       int bit;
> > +
> > +       fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops);
> > +       if (fprobe_disabled(fp))
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       /* recursion detection has to go before any traceable function and
> > +        * all functions before this point should be marked as notrace
> > +        */
> > +       bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
> > +       if (bit < 0) {
> > +               fp->nmissed++;
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> > +       __fprobe_handler(ip, parent_ip, ops, fregs);
> >         ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
> > +
> >  }
> >  NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(fprobe_handler);
> >
> >  static void fprobe_kprobe_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> >                                   struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> >  {
> > -       struct fprobe *fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops);
> > +       struct fprobe *fp;
> > +       int bit;
> > +
> > +       fp = container_of(ops, struct fprobe, ops);
> > +       if (fprobe_disabled(fp))
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       /* recursion detection has to go before any traceable function and
> > +        * all functions called before this point should be marked as notrace
> > +        */
> > +       bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
> > +       if (bit < 0) {
> > +               fp->nmissed++;
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> >
> >         if (unlikely(kprobe_running())) {
> >                 fp->nmissed++;
>
> I have just looked through this patchset, just out of curiosity,
> shouldn't we call ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit) here ?
> We have already locked it successfully, so why should we not unlock it?
>
> >                 return;
> >         }
> > +
> >         kprobe_busy_begin();
> > -       fprobe_handler(ip, parent_ip, ops, fregs);
> > +       __fprobe_handler(ip, parent_ip, ops, fregs);
> >         kprobe_busy_end();
> > +       ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void fprobe_exit_handler(struct rethook_node *rh, void *data,
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Yafang