Re: [PATCH -tip] kprobes: Lock rcu_read_lock() while searching kprobe

[Joel Fernandes]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:32:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Anders reported that the lockdep warns that suspicious
> RCU list usage in register_kprobe() (detected by
> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST.) This is because get_kprobe()
> access kprobe_table[] by hlist_for_each_entry_rcu()
> without rcu_read_lock.
> 
> If we call get_kprobe() from the breakpoint handler context,
> it is run with preempt disabled, so this is not a problem.
> But in other cases, instead of rcu_read_lock(), we locks
> kprobe_mutex so that the kprobe_table[] is not updated.
> So, current code is safe, but still not good from the view
> point of RCU.
> 
> Let's lock the rcu_read_lock() around get_kprobe() and
> ensure kprobe_mutex is locked at those points.
> 
> Note that we can safely unlock rcu_read_lock() soon after
> accessing the list, because we are sure the found kprobe has
> never gone before unlocking kprobe_mutex. Unless locking
> kprobe_mutex, caller must hold rcu_read_lock() until it
> finished operations on that kprobe.
> 
> Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>

Instead of this, can you not just pass the lockdep_is_held() expression as
the last argument to list_for_each_entry_rcu() to silence the warning? Then
it will be a simpler patch.

thanks,

 - Joel

> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c |   18 ++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index 53534aa258a6..fd814ea7dbd8 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ static inline void reset_kprobe_instance(void)
>   * 	- under the kprobe_mutex - during kprobe_[un]register()
>   * 				OR
>   * 	- with preemption disabled - from arch/xxx/kernel/kprobes.c
> + * In both cases, caller must disable preempt (or acquire rcu_read_lock)
>   */
>  struct kprobe *get_kprobe(void *addr)
>  {
> @@ -435,6 +436,7 @@ static int kprobe_queued(struct kprobe *p)
>  /*
>   * Return an optimized kprobe whose optimizing code replaces
>   * instructions including addr (exclude breakpoint).
> + * This must be called with locking kprobe_mutex.
>   */
>  static struct kprobe *get_optimized_kprobe(unsigned long addr)
>  {
> @@ -442,9 +444,12 @@ static struct kprobe *get_optimized_kprobe(unsigned long addr)
>  	struct kprobe *p = NULL;
>  	struct optimized_kprobe *op;
>  
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&kprobe_mutex);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  	/* Don't check i == 0, since that is a breakpoint case. */
>  	for (i = 1; !p && i < MAX_OPTIMIZED_LENGTH; i++)
>  		p = get_kprobe((void *)(addr - i));
> +	rcu_read_unlock();	/* We are safe because kprobe_mutex is held */
>  
>  	if (p && kprobe_optready(p)) {
>  		op = container_of(p, struct optimized_kprobe, kp);
> @@ -1478,18 +1483,21 @@ static struct kprobe *__get_valid_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>  {
>  	struct kprobe *ap, *list_p;
>  
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&kprobe_mutex);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  	ap = get_kprobe(p->addr);
>  	if (unlikely(!ap))
> -		return NULL;
> +		goto out;
>  
>  	if (p != ap) {
>  		list_for_each_entry_rcu(list_p, &ap->list, list)
>  			if (list_p == p)
>  			/* kprobe p is a valid probe */
> -				goto valid;
> -		return NULL;
> +				goto out;
> +		ap = NULL;
>  	}
> -valid:
> +out:
> +	rcu_read_unlock();	/* We are safe because kprobe_mutex is held */
>  	return ap;
>  }
>  
> @@ -1602,7 +1610,9 @@ int register_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
>  
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  	old_p = get_kprobe(p->addr);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();	/* We are safe because kprobe_mutex is held */
>  	if (old_p) {
>  		/* Since this may unoptimize old_p, locking text_mutex. */
>  		ret = register_aggr_kprobe(old_p, p);
>