[PATCH v2] kernel/kprobes: add re-register safe check for register_kretprobe()

[PATCH v2] kernel/kprobes: add re-register safe check for register_kretprobe()

[JianKang Chen]

From: Jiankang Chen <chenjiankang1@huawei.com>

When there are two same struct kretprobe rp, the INIT_HLIST_HEAD()
will result in a empty list table rp->free_instances. The memory leak
will happen. So it needs to add re-register safe check by
__get_valid_kprobe().

However, current this is not safe for multi-threadings, because
there is still a chance to re-register kretprobe concurrently.
So I add a kretprobe_mutex lock to protect the INIT_LIST_HEAD

And we use rcu read lock to protect the rcu list for __get_valid_kprobe

Signed-off-by: Jiankang Chen <chenjiankang1@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/kprobes.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index a1606a4..f8f027a 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
 
 /* This protects kprobe_table and optimizing_list */
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(kprobe_mutex);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(kretprobe_mutex);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, kprobe_instance) = NULL;
 static struct {
 	raw_spinlock_t lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
@@ -1919,6 +1920,7 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
 	struct kretprobe_instance *inst;
 	int i;
 	void *addr;
+	struct kprobe *kp;
 
 	if (!kprobe_on_func_entry(rp->kp.addr, rp->kp.symbol_name, rp->kp.offset))
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -1947,6 +1949,15 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
 		rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
 #endif
 	}
+
+	mutex_lock(&kretprobe_mutex);
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	kp = __get_valid_kprobe(&rp->kp);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+	if (kp) {
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto out;
+	}
 	raw_spin_lock_init(&rp->lock);
 	INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&rp->free_instances);
 	for (i = 0; i < rp->maxactive; i++) {
@@ -1954,7 +1965,8 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
 			       rp->data_size, GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (inst == NULL) {
 			free_rp_inst(rp);
-			return -ENOMEM;
+			ret = -ENOMEM;
+			goto out;
 		}
 		INIT_HLIST_NODE(&inst->hlist);
 		hlist_add_head(&inst->hlist, &rp->free_instances);
@@ -1965,6 +1977,8 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
 	ret = register_kprobe(&rp->kp);
 	if (ret != 0)
 		free_rp_inst(rp);
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&kretprobe_mutex);
 	return ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(register_kretprobe);
-- 
1.7.12.4

Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/kprobes: add re-register safe check for register_kretprobe()

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 20:09:06 +0800
JianKang Chen <chenjiankang1@huawei.com> wrote:

> From: Jiankang Chen <chenjiankang1@huawei.com>
> 
> When there are two same struct kretprobe rp, the INIT_HLIST_HEAD()
> will result in a empty list table rp->free_instances. The memory leak
> will happen. So it needs to add re-register safe check by
> __get_valid_kprobe().
> 
> However, current this is not safe for multi-threadings, because
> there is still a chance to re-register kretprobe concurrently.
> So I add a kretprobe_mutex lock to protect the INIT_LIST_HEAD
> 
> And we use rcu read lock to protect the rcu list for __get_valid_kprobe

Looks good to me :)

Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

Thank you!

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiankang Chen <chenjiankang1@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index a1606a4..f8f027a 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
>  
>  /* This protects kprobe_table and optimizing_list */
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(kprobe_mutex);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(kretprobe_mutex);
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, kprobe_instance) = NULL;
>  static struct {
>  	raw_spinlock_t lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> @@ -1919,6 +1920,7 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>  	struct kretprobe_instance *inst;
>  	int i;
>  	void *addr;
> +	struct kprobe *kp;
>  
>  	if (!kprobe_on_func_entry(rp->kp.addr, rp->kp.symbol_name, rp->kp.offset))
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -1947,6 +1949,15 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>  		rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
>  #endif
>  	}
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&kretprobe_mutex);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	kp = __get_valid_kprobe(&rp->kp);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	if (kp) {
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
>  	raw_spin_lock_init(&rp->lock);
>  	INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&rp->free_instances);
>  	for (i = 0; i < rp->maxactive; i++) {
> @@ -1954,7 +1965,8 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>  			       rp->data_size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (inst == NULL) {
>  			free_rp_inst(rp);
> -			return -ENOMEM;
> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto out;
>  		}
>  		INIT_HLIST_NODE(&inst->hlist);
>  		hlist_add_head(&inst->hlist, &rp->free_instances);
> @@ -1965,6 +1977,8 @@ int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>  	ret = register_kprobe(&rp->kp);
>  	if (ret != 0)
>  		free_rp_inst(rp);
> +out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&kretprobe_mutex);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(register_kretprobe);
> -- 
> 1.7.12.4
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>