Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 7/22] 7: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks.

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-06-15 20:11:26]:

> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 18:29 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > +       up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > +       mutex_lock(&uprobes_mutex);
> > +       down_read(&mm->mmap_sem); 
> 
> egads, and all that without a comment explaining why you think that is
> even remotely sane.
> 
> I'm not at all convinced, it would expose the mmap() even though you
> could still decide to tear it down if this function were to fail, I bet
> there's some funnies there.

The problem is with lock ordering.  register/unregister operations
acquire uprobes_mutex (which serializes register unregister and the
mmap_hook) and then holds mmap_sem for read before they insert a
breakpoint.

But the mmap hook would be called with mmap_sem held for write. So
acquiring uprobes_mutex can result in deadlock. Hence we release the
mmap_sem, take the uprobes_mutex and then again hold the mmap_sem.

After we re-acquire the mmap_sem, we do check if the vma is valid.

Do we have better solutions?

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/