Re: [PATCH] kprobes: Fix to handle forcibly unoptimized kprobes on freeing_list
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Mon Jan 23 2023 - 13:39:42 EST
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 22:24:05 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sinec forcibly unoptimized kprobes will be put on the freeing_list directly
"Since"
> in the unoptimize_kprobe(), do_unoptimize_kprobes() must continue to check
> the freeing_list even if unoptimizing_list is empty.
>
> This bug can be happen if a kprobe is put in an instruction which is in the
"This bug can happen if"
> middle of the jump-replaced instruction sequence of an optprobe, *and* the
> optprobe is recently unregistered and queued on unoptimizing_list.
> In this case, the optprobe will be unoptimized forcibly (means immediately)
> and put it into the freeing_list, expecting the optprobe will be handled in
> do_unoptimize_kprobe().
> But if there is no other optprobes on the unoptimizing_list, current code
> returns from the do_unoptimize_kprobe() soon and do not handle the optprobe
"and does not handle'
> which is on the freeing_list, and it will hit the WARN_ON_ONCE() in the
> do_free_cleaned_kprobes(), because it is not handled in the latter loop of
> the do_unoptimize_kprobe().
>
> To solve this issue, do not return from do_unoptimize_kprobes() immediately
> even if unoptimizing_list is empty.
>
> Moreover, this change affects another case. kill_optimized_kprobes() expects
> kprobe_optimizer() will just free the optprobe on freeing_list.
> So I changed it to just do list_move() to freeing_list if optprobes are on
> unoptimizing list. And the do_unoptimize_kprobe() will skip
> arch_disarm_kprobe() if the probe on freeing_list has gone flag.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y8URdIfVr3pq2X8w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Fixes: e4add247789e ("kprobes: Fix optimize_kprobe()/unoptimize_kprobe() cancellation logic")
> Reported-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/kprobes.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index 1c18ecf9f98b..73b150fad936 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -555,17 +555,15 @@ static void do_unoptimize_kprobes(void)
> /* See comment in do_optimize_kprobes() */
> lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>
> - /* Unoptimization must be done anytime */
> - if (list_empty(&unoptimizing_list))
> - return;
> + if (!list_empty(&unoptimizing_list))
> + arch_unoptimize_kprobes(&unoptimizing_list, &freeing_list);
>
> - arch_unoptimize_kprobes(&unoptimizing_list, &freeing_list);
> - /* Loop on 'freeing_list' for disarming */
> + /* Loop on 'freeing_list' for disarming and removing from kprobe hash list */
> list_for_each_entry_safe(op, tmp, &freeing_list, list) {
> /* Switching from detour code to origin */
> op->kp.flags &= ~KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED;
> - /* Disarm probes if marked disabled */
> - if (kprobe_disabled(&op->kp))
> + /* Disarm probes if marked disabled and not gone */
> + if (kprobe_disabled(&op->kp) && !kprobe_gone(&op->kp))
> arch_disarm_kprobe(&op->kp);
> if (kprobe_unused(&op->kp)) {
> /*
> @@ -797,14 +795,13 @@ static void kill_optimized_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> op->kp.flags &= ~KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED;
>
> if (kprobe_unused(p)) {
> - /* Enqueue if it is unused */
> - list_add(&op->list, &freeing_list);
> /*
> - * Remove unused probes from the hash list. After waiting
> - * for synchronization, this probe is reclaimed.
> - * (reclaiming is done by do_free_cleaned_kprobes().)
> + * Unused kprobe is on unoptimizing or freeing list. We move it
> + * to freeing_list and let the kprobe_optimizer() removes it from
"remove it"
> + * the kprobe hash list and frees it.
"and free it."
> */
> - hlist_del_rcu(&op->kp.hlist);
> + if (optprobe_queued_unopt(op))
> + list_move(&op->list, &freeing_list);
> }
>
> /* Don't touch the code, because it is already freed. */
Other than the spelling issues,
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
-- Steve