lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kprobes broken since 0d00449c7a28 ("x86: Replace ist_enter() with nmi_enter()")
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:08:40 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:02:49AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:59:43 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:45:48AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > Same things apply to bpf side. We can statically prove safety for
> > > > ftrace and kprobe attaching whereas to deal with NMI situation we
> > > > have to use run-time checks for recursion prevention, etc.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you're saying. You can attach to functions that are
> > > called with random locks held, you can create kprobes in some very
> > > sensitive places.
> > >
> > > What can you staticlly prove about that?
> >
> > For the bpf and the kprobe tracer, if a probe hits in the NMI context,
> > it can call the handler with another handler processing events.
> >
> > kprobes is carefully avoiding the deadlock by checking recursion
> > with per-cpu variable. But if the handler is shared with the other events
> > like tracepoints, it needs to its own recursion cheker too.
> >
> > So, Alexei, maybe you need something like this instead of in_nmi() check.
> >
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, under_running_bpf);
> >
> > common_handler()
> > {
> > if (__this_cpu_read(under_running_bpf))
> > return;
> > __this_cpu_write(under_running_bpf, true);
> > /* execute bpf prog */
> > __this_cpu_write(under_running_bpf, false);
> > }
> >
> > Does this work for you?
>
> This exactly check is already in trace_call_bpf.
> Right after if (in_nmi()).
> See bpf_prog_active. It serves different purpose though.
> Simply removing if (in_nmi()) from trace_call_bpf is a bit scary.
> I need to analyze all code paths first.

OK, if bpf already avoids its recursion, other considerable case is
that some resources are shared among bpf_prog and other parts. Since
asynchronous NMI can occur anywhere, such resource usage can conflict
with bpf_prog.

Kprobes had similar issue, so I set a dummy kprobes to current_kprobes
for protecting such critical sections.
See kprobe_busy_begin()/end() and where those are used.

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-30 13:11    [W:0.062 / U:5.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site