lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] uprobe: only do FOLL_SPLIT_PMD for uprobe register
Date


> On Oct 16, 2019, at 5:10 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/16, Song Liu wrote:
>>
>> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
>> @@ -474,14 +474,17 @@ int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
>> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> int ret, is_register, ref_ctr_updated = 0;
>> bool orig_page_huge = false;
>> + unsigned int gup_flags = FOLL_FORCE;
>>
>> is_register = is_swbp_insn(&opcode);
>> uprobe = container_of(auprobe, struct uprobe, arch);
>>
>> retry:
>> + if (is_register)
>> + gup_flags |= FOLL_SPLIT_PMD;
>> /* Read the page with vaddr into memory */
>> - ret = get_user_pages_remote(NULL, mm, vaddr, 1,
>> - FOLL_FORCE | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD, &old_page, &vma, NULL);
>> + ret = get_user_pages_remote(NULL, mm, vaddr, 1, gup_flags,
>> + &old_page, &vma, NULL);
>> if (ret <= 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> @@ -489,6 +492,9 @@ int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
>> if (ret <= 0)
>> goto put_old;
>>
>> + WARN(!is_register && PageCompound(old_page),
>> + "uprobe unregister should never work on compound page\n");
>
> But this can happen with the change above. You can't know if *vaddr was
> previously changed by install_breakpoint() or not.

> If not, verify_opcode() should likely save us, but we can't rely on it.
> Say, someone can write "int3" into vm_file at uprobe->offset.

I think this won't really happen. With is_register == false, we already
know opcode is not "int3", so current call must be from set_orig_insn().
Therefore, old_page must be installed by uprobe, and cannot be compound.

The other way is not guaranteed. With is_register == true, it is still
possible current call is from set_orig_insn(). However, we do not rely
on this path.

Does this make sense? Or did I miss anything?

>
> And I am not sure it is safe to continue in this case, I'd suggest to
> return -EWHATEVER to avoid the possible crash.

I think we can return -ESOMETHING here to be safe. However, if the
analysis above makes sense, it is not necessary.

Thanks,
Song


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-16 18:11    [W:0.106 / U:8.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site