On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/09, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
> > int remove = UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
> > - bool need_prep = false; /* prepare return uprobe, when needed */
> > + struct return_consumer *ric = NULL;
> > + struct return_instance *ri = NULL;
> > bool has_consumers = false;
> >
> > current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch;
> >
> > list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > + __u64 cookie = 0;
> > int rc = 0;
> >
> > if (uc->handler) {
> > - rc = uc->handler(uc, regs);
> > - WARN(rc & ~UPROBE_HANDLER_MASK,
> > + rc = uc->handler(uc, regs, &cookie);
> > + WARN(rc < 0 || rc > 2,
> > "bad rc=0x%x from %ps()\n", rc, uc->handler);
> > }
> >
> > - if (uc->ret_handler)
> > - need_prep = true;
> > -
> > + /*
> > + * The handler can return following values:
> > + * 0 - execute ret_handler (if it's defined)
> > + * 1 - remove uprobe
> > + * 2 - do nothing (ignore ret_handler)
> > + */
> > remove &= rc;
> > has_consumers = true;
> > +
> > + if (rc == 0 && uc->ret_handler) {
>
> should we enter this block if uc->handler == NULL?
yes, consumer can have just ret_handler defined
>
> > + /*
> > + * Preallocate return_instance object optimistically with
> > + * all possible consumers, so we allocate just once.
> > + */
> > + if (!ri) {
> > + ri = alloc_return_instance(uprobe->consumers_cnt);
>
> This doesn't look right...
>
> Suppose we have a single consumer C1, so uprobe->consumers_cnt == 1 and
> alloc_return_instance() allocates return_instance with for a single consumer,
> so that only ri->consumers[0] is valid.
>
> Right after that uprobe_register()->consumer_add() adds another consumer
> C2 with ->ret_handler != NULL.
>
> On the next iteration return_consumer_next() will return the invalid addr
> == &ri->consumers[1].
>
> perhaps this needs krealloc() ?
damn.. there used to be a lock ;-) ok, for some reason I thought we are safe
in that list iteration and we are not.. I just made selftest that triggers that
I'm not sure the realloc will help, I feel like we need to allocate return
consumer for each called handler separately to be safe
>
> > + if (!ri)
> > + return;
>
> Not sure we should simply return if kzalloc fails... at least it would be better
> to clear current->utask->auprobe.
>
> > + if (ri && !remove)
> > + prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri); /* put bp at return */
> > + else
> > + kfree(ri);
>
> Well, if ri != NULL then remove is not possible, afaics... ri != NULL means
> that at least one ->handler() returned rc = 0, thus "remove" must be zero.
>
> So it seems you can just do
>
> if (ri)
> prepare_uretprobe(...);
true, I think that should be enough
thanks,
jirka
>
>
> Didn't read other parts of your patch yet ;)
>
> Oleg.
>
