Re: [PATCH 2/7] kprobes: Propagate error from arm_kprobe_ftrace()

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2015/02/27 1:13), Petr Mladek wrote:
> arm_kprobe_ftrace() could fail, especially after introducing ftrace IPMODIFY
> flag and LifePatching.
> 
> registry_kprobe() and registry_aggr_kprobe() do not mind about the error
> because the kprobe gets disabled and they keep it registered.
> 
> But enable_kprobe() should propagate the error because its tasks
> fails if ftrace fails.
> 
> Also arm_all_kprobes() should return error if it happens. The behavior
> is a bit questionable here. This patch keeps the existing behavior and does
> the best effort. It tries to enable as many Kprobes as possible. It returns
> only the last error code if any. kprobes_all_disarmed is always cleared and
> the message about finished action is always printed. There is going to be
> a separate patch that will improve the behavior.

When I applied it on -tip/master, there is a hunk which is not cleanly applied.
Please rebase it on the latest tip/master, since some logic are changed.

Here I have some comments on it.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index d1b9db690b9c..a69d23add983 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static int prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>  }
>  
>  /* Caller must lock kprobe_mutex */
> -static void arm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
> +static int arm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
>  {
>  	struct kprobe *kp;
>  	int ret;
> @@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ static void arm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
>  			goto err_function;
>  	}
>  	kprobe_ftrace_enabled++;
> -	return;
> +	return ret;
>  
>  err_function:
>  	ftrace_set_filter_ip(&kprobe_ftrace_ops, (unsigned long)p->addr, 1, 0);
> @@ -958,6 +958,7 @@ err_filter:
>  	if (kprobe_aggrprobe(p))
>  		list_for_each_entry_rcu(kp, &p->list, list)
>  			kp->flags |= KPROBE_FLAG_DISABLED;
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  /* Caller must lock kprobe_mutex */
> @@ -976,17 +977,15 @@ static void disarm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
>  }
>  #else	/* !CONFIG_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE */
>  #define prepare_kprobe(p)	arch_prepare_kprobe(p)
> -#define arm_kprobe_ftrace(p)	do {} while (0)
> +#define arm_kprobe_ftrace(p)	(0)
>  #define disarm_kprobe_ftrace(p)	do {} while (0)
>  #endif
>  
>  /* Arm a kprobe with text_mutex */
> -static void arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp)
> +static int arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp)
>  {
> -	if (unlikely(kprobe_ftrace(kp))) {
> -		arm_kprobe_ftrace(kp);
> -		return;
> -	}
> +	if (unlikely(kprobe_ftrace(kp)))
> +		return arm_kprobe_ftrace(kp);
>  	/*
>  	 * Here, since __arm_kprobe() doesn't use stop_machine(),
>  	 * this doesn't cause deadlock on text_mutex. So, we don't
> @@ -995,6 +994,7 @@ static void arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp)
>  	mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
>  	__arm_kprobe(kp);
>  	mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  /* Disarm a kprobe with text_mutex */
> @@ -1332,10 +1332,15 @@ out:
>  	put_online_cpus();
>  	jump_label_unlock();
>  
> +	/* Arm when this is the first enabled kprobe at this address */
>  	if (ret == 0 && kprobe_disabled(ap) && !kprobe_disabled(p)) {
>  		ap->flags &= ~KPROBE_FLAG_DISABLED;
>  		if (!kprobes_all_disarmed)
> -			/* Arm the breakpoint again. */
> +			/*
> +			 * The kprobe is disabled and warning is printed
> +			 * on error. But we ignore the error code here
> +			 * because we keep it registered.
> +			 */

Why? if we can't arm it, we'd better make it fail.

>  			arm_kprobe(ap);
>  	}
>  	return ret;
> @@ -1540,6 +1545,11 @@ int register_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>  		       &kprobe_table[hash_ptr(p->addr, KPROBE_HASH_BITS)]);
>  
>  	if (!kprobes_all_disarmed && !kprobe_disabled(p))
> +		/*
> +		 * The kprobe is disabled and warning is printed on error.
> +		 * But we ignore the error code here because we keep it
> +		 * registered.
> +		 */
>  		arm_kprobe(p);

Ditto. If we failed to enable it. We should make it fail and report an error
to caller.

Thank you,

>  
>  	/* Try to optimize kprobe */
> @@ -2040,7 +2050,7 @@ int enable_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp)
>  
>  	if (!kprobes_all_disarmed && kprobe_disabled(p)) {
>  		p->flags &= ~KPROBE_FLAG_DISABLED;
> -		arm_kprobe(p);
> +		ret = arm_kprobe(p);
>  	}
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex);
> @@ -2325,11 +2335,12 @@ static const struct file_operations debugfs_kprobe_blacklist_ops = {
>  	.release        = seq_release,
>  };
>  
> -static void arm_all_kprobes(void)
> +static int arm_all_kprobes(void)
>  {
>  	struct hlist_head *head;
>  	struct kprobe *p;
>  	unsigned int i;
> +	int err, ret = 0;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
>  
> @@ -2341,8 +2352,11 @@ static void arm_all_kprobes(void)
>  	for (i = 0; i < KPROBE_TABLE_SIZE; i++) {
>  		head = &kprobe_table[i];
>  		hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, hlist)
> -			if (!kprobe_disabled(p))
> -				arm_kprobe(p);
> +			if (!kprobe_disabled(p)) {
> +				err = arm_kprobe(p);
> +				if (err)
> +					ret = err;
> +			}
>  	}
>  
>  	kprobes_all_disarmed = false;
> @@ -2350,7 +2364,7 @@ static void arm_all_kprobes(void)
>  
>  already_enabled:
>  	mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex);
> -	return;
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  static void disarm_all_kprobes(void)
> @@ -2407,6 +2421,7 @@ static ssize_t write_enabled_file_bool(struct file *file,
>  {
>  	char buf[32];
>  	size_t buf_size;
> +	int err = 0;
>  
>  	buf_size = min(count, (sizeof(buf)-1));
>  	if (copy_from_user(buf, user_buf, buf_size))
> @@ -2417,7 +2432,7 @@ static ssize_t write_enabled_file_bool(struct file *file,
>  	case 'y':
>  	case 'Y':
>  	case '1':
> -		arm_all_kprobes();
> +		err = arm_all_kprobes();
>  		break;
>  	case 'n':
>  	case 'N':
> @@ -2428,6 +2443,8 @@ static ssize_t write_enabled_file_bool(struct file *file,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
>  	return count;
>  }
>  
> 


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx


--
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/