Re: [PATCH -tip v8 04/13] kprobes: Add kretprobe_find_ret_addr() for searching return address

[Masami Hiramatsu]

Hi Ingo,

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 09:42:44 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Add kretprobe_find_ret_addr() for searching correct return address
> > from kretprobe instance list.
> 
> A better changelog:
> 
>    Add kretprobe_find_ret_addr() for searching the correct return address 
>    from the kretprobe instances list.
> 
> But an explanation of *why* we want to add this function would be even 
> better. Is it a cleanup? Is it in preparation for future changes?

It's latter. This is for exposing kretprobe_find_ret_addr() and
is_kretprobe_trampoline(), which will be used in the 11/13.

> 
> Plus:
> 
> >  include/linux/kprobes.h |   22 +++++++++++
> >  kernel/kprobes.c        |   91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> > index 5ce677819a25..08d3415e4418 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> > @@ -207,6 +207,14 @@ static nokprobe_inline void *kretprobe_trampoline_addr(void)
> >  	return dereference_kernel_function_descriptor(kretprobe_trampoline);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static nokprobe_inline bool is_kretprobe_trampoline(unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > +	return (void *)addr == kretprobe_trampoline_addr();
> > +}
> > +
> > +unsigned long kretprobe_find_ret_addr(struct task_struct *tsk, void *fp,
> > +				      struct llist_node **cur);
> 
> These prototypes for helpers are put into a section of:
> 
>   #ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
> 
> But:
> 
> > +#if !defined(CONFIG_KRETPROBES)
> > +static nokprobe_inline bool is_kretprobe_trampoline(unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static nokprobe_inline
> > +unsigned long kretprobe_find_ret_addr(struct task_struct *tsk, void *fp,
> > +				      struct llist_node **cur)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> 
> Why does this use such a weird pattern? What is wrong with:
> 
>    #ifndef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
> 
> But more importantly, why isn't this in the regular '#else' block of the 
> CONFIG_KRETPROBES block you added the other functions to ??

This is because there can be CONFIG_KPROBES=y but CONFIG_KRETPROBES=n case.

There are 3 combinations
1. CONFIG_KPROBES=y && CONFIG_KRETPROBES=y
2. CONFIG_KPROBES=y && CONFIG_KRETPROBES=n
3. CONFIG_KPROBES=n && CONFIG_KRETPROBES=n
The former definition covers case#1(note that this is in the #ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES),
and latter covers case #2 and #3.
(BTW, nowadays case #2 doesn't exist, so I think I should remove CONFIG_KRETPROBES)

Anyway, I'll put both at the last so that easier to read, something like

#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
static nokprobe_inline bool is_kretprobe_trampoline(unsigned long addr)
...
#else
static nokprobe_inline bool is_kretprobe_trampoline(unsigned long addr)
...
#endif

> 
> Why this intentional obfuscation combined with poor changelogs - is the 
> kprobes code too easy to read, does it have too few bugs?
> 
> And this series is on v8 already, and nobody noticed this?
> 
> > +/* This assumes the tsk is current or the task which is not running. */
> > +static unsigned long __kretprobe_find_ret_addr(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > +					       struct llist_node **cur)
> 
> 
> A better comment:
> 
>     /* This assumes 'tsk' is the current task, or is not running. */
> 
> We always escape variable names in English sentences. This is nothing new.

OK.

> 
> > +			*cur = node;
> > +			return (unsigned long)ri->ret_addr;
> 
> Don't just randomly add forced type casts (which are dangerous, 
> bug-inducing patterns of code) without examining whether it's justified.

Yes, I need to cleanup kprobes code, it seems too many '*' <-> 'unsinged long'
type castings.

> But a compiler warning is not justification!
> 
> In this case the examination would involve:
> 
>   kepler:~/tip> git grep -w ret_addr kernel/kprobes.c 
> 
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               if (ri->ret_addr != kretprobe_trampoline_addr()) {
>   kernel/kprobes.c:                       return (unsigned long)ri->ret_addr;
>   kernel/kprobes.c:                       ri->ret_addr = correct_ret_addr;
> 
>   kepler:~/tip> git grep -w correct_ret_addr kernel/kprobes.c 
> 
>   kernel/kprobes.c:       kprobe_opcode_t *correct_ret_addr = NULL;
>   kernel/kprobes.c:       correct_ret_addr = (void *)__kretprobe_find_ret_addr(current, &node);
>   kernel/kprobes.c:       if (!correct_ret_addr) {
>   kernel/kprobes.c:                       ri->ret_addr = correct_ret_addr;
>   kernel/kprobes.c:       return (unsigned long)correct_ret_addr;
> 
> what we can see here is unnecessary type confusion & friction of the first 
> degree:
> 
>  - 'correct_ret_addr' is 'kprobe_opcode_t *' (which is good), but the newly 
>    introduced __kretprobe_find_ret_addr() function doesn't return such a 
>    type - why?

OK, this is my mistake. Since 'kprobe_opcode_t *' is used only inside the
kprobes, I would like to make kretprobe_find_ret_addr() returning 'unsigned
long'. But I used 'unsigned long' for internal function too.

>  - struct_kretprobe_instance::ret_address has a 'kprobe_opcode_t *' type as 
>    well - which is good.
> 
>  - kretprobe_find_ret_addr() uses 'unsigned long', but it returns the value 
>    to __kretprobe_trampoline_handler(), which does *another* forced type 
>    cast:
> 
>   +       correct_ret_addr = (void *)__kretprobe_find_ret_addr(current, &node);

This is '__kretprobe_find_ret_addr()', an internal function, which should
be fixed to return 'kprobe_opcode_t *'.

But I would like to keep the 'kretprobe_find_ret_addr()' returns 'unsigned long'
because it is used from stack unwinder, which uses 'unsigned long' for the
address type. What would you think?

> So we have the following type conversions:
> 
>   kprobe_opcode_t * => unsigned long => unsigned long => kprobe_opcode_t *
> 
> Is there a technical reason why we cannot just use 'kprobe_opcode_t *'.

OK, I'll use the 'kprobe_opcode_t *' unless it is exposed to other subsystem.

> 
> All other type casts in the kprobes code should be reviewed as well.
> 
> > -	BUG_ON(1);
> > +	return 0;
> 
> And in the proper, intact type propagation model this would become
> 'return NULL' - which is *far* more obviously a 'not found' condition
> than a random zero that might mean anything...

OK.

> 
> > +unsigned long kretprobe_find_ret_addr(struct task_struct *tsk, void *fp,
> > +				      struct llist_node **cur)
> > +{
> > +	struct kretprobe_instance *ri = NULL;
> > +	unsigned long ret;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		ret = __kretprobe_find_ret_addr(tsk, cur);
> > +		if (!ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +		ri = container_of(*cur, struct kretprobe_instance, llist);
> > +	} while (ri->fp != fp);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> 
> Here I see another type model problem: why is the frame pointer 'void *', 
> which makes it way too easy to mix up with text pointers such as 
> 'kprobe_opcode_t *'?

(at that moment, I just used same type of 'kretprobe_instance->fp')

> 
> In the x86 unwinder we use 'unsigned long *' as the frame pointer:
> 
>      unsigned long *bp
> 
> but it might also make sense to introduce a more opaque dedicated type 
> within the kprobes code, such as 'frame_pointer_t'.
> 
> > +unsigned long __kretprobe_trampoline_handler(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > +					     void *frame_pointer)
> > +{
> > +	kprobe_opcode_t *correct_ret_addr = NULL;
> > +	struct kretprobe_instance *ri = NULL;
> > +	struct llist_node *first, *node = NULL;
> > +	struct kretprobe *rp;
> > +
> > +	/* Find correct address and all nodes for this frame. */
> > +	correct_ret_addr = (void *)__kretprobe_find_ret_addr(current, &node);
> > +	if (!correct_ret_addr) {
> > +		pr_err("Oops! Kretprobe fails to find correct return address.\n");
> 
> Could we please make user-facing messages less random? Right now we have:

OK. Those are historically randomly expanded. Now the time to clean up.

> 
>   kepler:~/tip> git grep -E 'pr_.*\(' kernel/kprobes.c include/linux/kprobes.h include/asm-generic/kprobes.h $(find arch/ -name kprobes.c)
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c:             pr_warn("Unrecoverable kprobe detected.\n");
>   arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c:              pr_warn("Address not aligned.\n");
>   arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c:              pr_warn("Unrecoverable kprobe detected.\n");
>   arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c:             pr_notice("Kprobes for ll and sc instructions are not"
>   arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c:             pr_notice("Kprobes for branch delayslot are not supported\n");
>   arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c:             pr_notice("Kprobes for compact branches are not supported\n");
>   arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c:     pr_notice("%s: unaligned epc - sending SIGBUS.\n", current->comm);
>   arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c:                     pr_notice("Kprobes: Error in evaluating branch\n");
>   arch/riscv/kernel/probes/kprobes.c:             pr_warn("Address not aligned.\n");
>   arch/riscv/kernel/probes/kprobes.c:             pr_warn("Unrecoverable kprobe detected.\n");
>   arch/s390/kernel/kprobes.c:             pr_err("Invalid kprobe detected.\n");
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_debug("Failed to arm kprobe-ftrace at %pS (%d)\n",
>   kernel/kprobes.c:                       pr_debug("Failed to init kprobe-ftrace (%d)\n", ret);
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_err("Oops! Kretprobe fails to find correct return address.\n");
>   kernel/kprobes.c:       pr_err("Dumping kprobe:\n");
>   kernel/kprobes.c:       pr_err("Name: %s\nOffset: %x\nAddress: %pS\n",
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_err("kprobes: failed to populate blacklist: %d\n", err);
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_err("Please take care of using kprobes.\n");
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_warn("Kprobes globally enabled, but failed to arm %d out of %d probes\n",
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_info("Kprobes globally enabled\n");
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_warn("Kprobes globally disabled, but failed to disarm %d out of %d probes\n",
>   kernel/kprobes.c:               pr_info("Kprobes globally disabled\n");
> 
> In particular, what users may see in their syslog, when the kprobes code 
> runs into trouble, is, roughly:
> 
>   kepler:~/tip> git grep -E 'pr_.*\(' kernel/kprobes.c include/linux/kprobes.h include/asm-generic/kprobes.h $(find arch/ -name kprobes.c) | cut -d\" -f2
> 
>   Unrecoverable kprobe detected.\n
>   Address not aligned.\n
>   Unrecoverable kprobe detected.\n
>   Kprobes for ll and sc instructions are not
>   Kprobes for branch delayslot are not supported\n
>   Kprobes for compact branches are not supported\n
>   %s: unaligned epc - sending SIGBUS.\n
>   Kprobes: Error in evaluating branch\n
>   Address not aligned.\n
>   Unrecoverable kprobe detected.\n
>   Invalid kprobe detected.\n
>   Failed to arm kprobe-ftrace at %pS (%d)\n
>   Failed to init kprobe-ftrace (%d)\n
>   Oops! Kretprobe fails to find correct return address.\n
>   Dumping kprobe:\n
>   Name: %s\nOffset: %x\nAddress: %pS\n
>   kprobes: failed to populate blacklist: %d\n
>   Please take care of using kprobes.\n
>   Kprobes globally enabled, but failed to arm %d out of %d probes\n
>   Kprobes globally enabled\n
>   Kprobes globally disabled, but failed to disarm %d out of %d probes\n
>   Kprobes globally disabled\n
> 
> Ugh. Some of the messages don't even have 'kprobes' in them...

Indeed.

> 
> So my suggestion would be:
> 
>  - Introduce a subsystem syslog message prefix, via the standard pattern  of:
> 
>      #define pr_fmt(fmt) "kprobes: " fmt

OK.

> 
>  - Standardize the messages:
> 
>     - Start each message with a key noun that stresses the nature of the 
>       failure.
> 
>     - *Make each message self-explanatory*, don't leave users hanging in 
>       the air about what is going to happen next. Messages like:
> 
>                Address not aligned.\n
> 
>     - Check spelling. This:
> 
>                 pr_err("kprobes: failed to populate blacklist: %d\n", err);
>                 pr_err("Please take care of using kprobes.\n");
> 
>       should be on a single line and should probably say something like:
> 
>                 pr_err("kprobes: Failed to populate blacklist (error: %d), kprobes not restricted, be careful using them!.\n", err);
> 
>       and if checkpatch complains that the line is 'too long', ignore 
>       checkpatch and keep the message self-contained.

OK. 

> 
>  - and most importantly: provide a suggested *resolution*. 
>    Passive-aggressive messages like:
> 
>       Oops! Kretprobe fails to find correct return address.\n
> 
>    are next to useless. Instead, always describe:
> 
>      - what happened,
>      - what is the kernel going to do or not do,
>      - is the kernel fine,
>      - what can the user do about it.

OK, since above message is a kind of dying message, it must be important to notice
that the thread may not possible to continue to work.

> 
>    In this case, a better message would be:
> 
>       kretprobes: Return address not found, not executing handler. Kernel is probably fine, but check the system tool that did this.

If this happens, the kernel calls BUG_ON(1) because it is unrecovarable error
and there may be kernel bug. Can I say "kernel is probably fine"?

> 
> Each and every message should be reviewed & fixed to meet these standards - 
> or should be removed and replaced with a WARN_ON() if it's indicating an 
> internal bug that cannot be caused by kprobes using tools, such as this 
> one:
> 
> > +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ri->fp != frame_pointer))
> > +			break;
> 
> I can help double checking the fixed messages, if you are unsure about any 
> of them.

Thanks for you help!

> 
> > +	/* Recycle them.  */
> > +	while (first) {
> > +		ri = container_of(first, struct kretprobe_instance, llist);
> > +		first = first->next;
> >  
> >  		recycle_rp_inst(ri);
> >  	}
> 
> It would be helpful to explain, a bit more verbose comment, what 
> 'recycling' is in this context. The code is not very helpful:

OK.

> 
>   NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(free_rp_inst_rcu);
> 
>   static void recycle_rp_inst(struct kretprobe_instance *ri)
>   {
>           struct kretprobe *rp = get_kretprobe(ri);
> 
>           if (likely(rp)) {
>                   freelist_add(&ri->freelist, &rp->freelist);
>           } else
>                   call_rcu(&ri->rcu, free_rp_inst_rcu);
>   }
>   NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(recycle_rp_inst);
> 
> BTW., why are unnecessary curly braces used here?

Maybe I forgot to remove it when I introduced freelist_add() there...

> 
> The kprobes code urgently needs a quality boost.

OK, before this series, I'll clean it up first.

Thank you,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>