Re: [PATCH V9 01/16] rv: Add Runtime Verification (RV) interface

[Daniel Bristot de Oliveira]

On 7/31/22 17:06, Tao Zhou wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 08:07:07PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> On 7/30/22 16:08, Tao Zhou wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:38:40AM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static int __rv_disable_monitor(struct rv_monitor_def *mdef, bool sync)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&rv_interface_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (mdef->monitor->enabled) {
>>>> +		mdef->monitor->enabled = 0;
>>>> +		mdef->monitor->disable();
>>>
>>> If call disable(), the @enabled is set 0 there.
>>
>> Which is correct.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * Wait for the execution of all events to finish.
>>>> +		 * Otherwise, the data used by the monitor could
>>>> +		 * be inconsistent. i.e., if the monitor is re-enabled.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if (sync)
>>>> +			tracepoint_synchronize_unregister();
>>>> +		return 1;
>>>
>>> Return 0 indicate the actually disabling and successed.
>>
>> No, 1 indicates that *disable was called, 0 did not call disable function.
>>
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>
>>> If disable a diabled monitor, return error(negative).
>>
>> This is a "static __function", which alerts for internal aspects.
>>
>> It has a specific purpose of counting if the disable function
>> was actually called.
>>
>> Disabling a disabled monitor is not a problem.
>>
>> So all your argumentation based on this is not correct, and it is breaking
>> other parts of the code... see where it is called.
>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * rv_disable_monitor - disable a given runtime monitor
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns 0 on success.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int rv_disable_monitor(struct rv_monitor_def *mdef)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	__rv_disable_monitor(mdef, true);
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>
>>> Always return 0 here, whatever the return value of __rv_disable_monitor().
>>> And this enforce me to look more here, see below.
>>
>> This is not a problem. Actually, disable functions often return void.
>> I am keeping an int just in case.
>>
>>>> +}
>>>
>>>> +static ssize_t enabled_monitors_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *user_buf,
>>>> +				      size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	char buff[MAX_RV_MONITOR_NAME_SIZE + 2];
>>>> +	struct rv_monitor_def *mdef;
>>>> +	int retval = -EINVAL;
>>>> +	bool enable = true;
>>>> +	char *ptr = buff;
>>>> +	int len;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (count < 1 || count > MAX_RV_MONITOR_NAME_SIZE + 1)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	memset(buff, 0, sizeof(buff));
>>>> +
>>>> +	retval = simple_write_to_buffer(buff, sizeof(buff) - 1, ppos, user_buf, count);
>>>> +	if (retval < 0)
>>>> +		return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> +	ptr = strim(buff);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (ptr[0] == '!') {
>>>> +		enable = false;
>>>> +		ptr++;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	len = strlen(ptr);
>>>> +	if (!len)
>>>> +		return count;
>>>> +
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&rv_interface_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> +	retval = -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(mdef, &rv_monitors_list, list) {
>>>> +		if (strcmp(ptr, mdef->monitor->name) != 0)
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * Monitor found!
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if (enable)
>>>> +			retval = rv_enable_monitor(mdef);
>>>> +		else
>>>> +			retval = rv_disable_monitor(mdef);
>>>
>>> About the retval here. If count == 1 and retval == 0, then
>>> `retval = count` --> retval == 1. This retval will be returned to 
>>> user space and dedicate that how many character read and success
>>> If retval is 1(it is not possiable, the return value of
>>> da_monitor_init_*() called in enable callback in rv_enable_monitor()
>>> will be 0, so that return value check is not needed, or any other functions
>>> called in enable callback need to check the return value then,...
>>
>> All things above are misled by the first interpretation but,,,
> 
> Yeah, this is not that clear from my above words expression. I said the return
> value of da_monitor_init_*() will be 0, but it is not right. Global and per-cpu
> monitor will return 0, per-task monitor may return a positive value when the
> slot is equal or greater than RV_PER_TASK_MONITOR_INIT(how possible this will
> happen I do know yet). This is from reading the current code implementation.
> I just want to say that there may be a bug here.

goto my previous email;

> If rv_enable_monitor() return a positive value and the error happened(as above
> said), user space will not know this is a error return value, but regard it as a
> right writing. Even if the return value(the slot value not in [0..RV_PER_TASK_MONITOR_INIT))
> is equal to count of charaters that are writen to the file(the string length of monitor name),
> it will still be not a right writing.
> 
>>
>> so I checked
>>> the WARN_ONCE() called in macro rv_attach_trace_probe() which is called in
>>> enable callback,if the WARN_ONCE is called, it means that something go wrong.
>>
>> The way that rv_attach_trace_probe() is attaching a probe is not different from the way
>> other *in kernel* tracing does.
>>
>>> We need to check the return value of WARN_ONCE() in enable callback), the
>>> return value will be returned to user space but actually the error(warn) happened.
>>> User space do not know. They treat the two kind of return value 1 the same
>>> but one is the write count value successed and another is the write error
>>> value returned.
>>> In enable callback, check rv_attach_trace_probe():
>>>
>>> static int enable_wip(void)
>>> {
>>>       int retval = 1;
>>>  	  
>>>       /* 
>>>        * Delete the check of return value of da_monitor_init_wip()
>>>        * because it is always 0
>>>        */
>>>       da_monitor_init_wip();
>>>
>>>       retval &= rv_attach_trace_probe("wip", preempt_enable, handle_preempt_enable);
>>>       retval &= rv_attach_trace_probe("wip", sched_waking, handle_sched_waking);
>>>       retval &= rv_attach_trace_probe("wip", preempt_disable, handle_preempt_disable);
>>
>> No, that is not the most robust way to do this. A better way is to do it like in the
>> early versions of this patch set, where it was searching for the existence of the tracepoint
> 
> Even if we check the return value of rv_attach_trace_probe() in current implementation,
> once error happened from one register the previous trace pointers will not be unregistered.

goto my previous email; see other tracers.

>> from the module perspective, taking notes of the ones that were enabled, and then actually disabling
>> all events that were enabled before the failure.
>>
>>>
>>>       /* 
>>>        * If the retval is not 0, it mean at least one rv_attach_trace_probe()
>>>        * is WARN_ONCE(). I am not sure that if the first WARN_ONCE() happened,
>>>        * then return directly or at here after all rv_attach_trace_probe() is
>>>        * called and check the retval is 0 or 1.
>>>        */
>>>       if (retval)
>>>              return -1;
>>
>> and here the system state is even worse than WARNING and doing nothing: the monitor is
>> disabled, but the tracepoints that were registered are still hooked to the system...
>> and you cannot unhook them because the monitor is not enabled.
>>
>> You still can unhook in current implementation.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tao
>>
>> So, for the in-kernel version, the current method is equivalent to the
>> the way we do on other tracers, and the monitors only compile if the
>> tracepoints exist, the callback has the correct signature and WARNs
>> in case of problems in the tracepoint.
>>
>> There will be a more robust way to do this, and it will be included in the
>> "add module support" patch set. But is its better to add it in a patch
>> set because we can analyze change by change instead of adding on top
>> of this initial implementation - which is quite large already.
>>
>>>       return retval;
>>> }
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (!retval)
>>>> +			retval = count;
>>>> +
>>>> +		break;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * rv_register_monitor - register a rv monitor.
>>>> + * @monitor:    The rv_monitor to be registered.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns 0 if successful, error otherwise.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int rv_register_monitor(struct rv_monitor *monitor)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct rv_monitor_def *r;
>>>> +	int retval = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (strlen(monitor->name) >= MAX_RV_MONITOR_NAME_SIZE) {
>>>
>>> s/>=/>/ no? The same check happened in patch 2. Thanks,
>>
>> Yep, this can be improved. But it is not a BUG, as it is allowing monitor
>>  with (MAX_RV_MONITOR_NAME_SIZE - 1) size, which is safe.
>>
>> Given that neither 'wip' or 'wwnr' are >= MAX_RV_MONITOR_NAME_SIZE, this
>> problem is not happening - and no other monitor can hit it because modules
>> are not yet supported.
>>
>> I took note and will patch it.
>>
>>>> +		pr_info("Monitor %s has a name longer than %d\n", monitor->name,
>>>> +			MAX_RV_MONITOR_NAME_SIZE);
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -- Daniel