On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:21:18AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:09 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 09:01:02AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 3:01 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter reported that perf_event_detach_bpf_prog might skip to release
> > > > the bpf program for -ENOENT error from bpf_prog_array_copy.
> > > >
> > > > This can't happen because bpf program is stored in perf event and is
> > > > detached and released only when perf event is freed.
> > > >
> > > > Let's make it obvious and add WARN_ON_ONCE on the -ENOENT check and
> > > > make sure the bpf program is released in any case.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: 170a7e3ea070 ("bpf: bpf_prog_array_copy() should return -ENOENT if exclude_prog not found")
> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241022111638.GC16066@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 5 +++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > index 95b6b3b16bac..2c064ba7b0bd 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > @@ -2216,8 +2216,8 @@ void perf_event_detach_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event)
> > > >
> > > > old_array = bpf_event_rcu_dereference(event->tp_event->prog_array);
> > > > ret = bpf_prog_array_copy(old_array, event->prog, NULL, 0, &new_array);
> > > > - if (ret == -ENOENT)
> > > > - goto unlock;
> > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == -ENOENT))
> > > > + goto put;
> > > > if (ret < 0) {
> > > > bpf_prog_array_delete_safe(old_array, event->prog);
> > >
> > > seeing
> > >
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > bpf_prog_array_delete_safe(old_array, event->prog);
> > >
> > > I think neither ret == -ENOENT nor WARN_ON_ONCE is necessary, tbh. So
> > > now I feel like just dropping WARN_ON_ONCE() is better.
> >
> > hi,
> > there's syzbot report [1] where we could end up with following
> >
> > - create perf event and set bpf program to it
> > - clone process -> create inherited event
> > - exit -> release both events
> > - first perf_event_detach_bpf_prog call will release tp_event->prog_array
> > and second perf_event_detach_bpf_prog will crash because
> > tp_event->prog_array is NULL
> >
> > we can fix that quicly with change below, I guess we could add refcount
> > to bpf_prog_array_item and allow one of the parent/inherited events to
> > work while the other is gone.. but that might be too much, will check
> >
> > jirka
> >
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/Z1MR6dCIKajNS6nU@krava/T/#m91dbf0688221ec7a7fc95e896a7ef9ff93b0b8ad
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index fe57dfbf2a86..d4b45543ebc2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -2251,6 +2251,8 @@ void perf_event_detach_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event)
> > goto unlock;
> >
> > old_array = bpf_event_rcu_dereference(event->tp_event->prog_array);
> > + if (!old_array)
> > + goto put;
>
> How does this inherited event stuff work? You can have two separate
> events sharing the same prog_array? What if we attach different
> programs to each of those events, will both of them be called for
> either of two events? That sounds broken, if that's true.
so perf event with attr.inherit=1 attached on task will get inherited
by child process.. the new child event shares the parent's bpf program
and tp_event (hence prog_array) which is global for tracepoint
AFAICS when child process exits the inherited event is destroyed and it
removes related tp_event->prog_array, so the parent event won't trigger
ever again, the test below shows that
test_tp_attach:FAIL:executed unexpected executed: actual 1 != expected 2
I'm not sure this is problem in practise, because nobody complained
about that ;-)
libbpf does not set attr.inherit=1 and creates system wide perf event,
so no problem there
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 66173ddb5a2d..2e96241b5030 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -12430,8 +12430,9 @@ static int perf_event_open_tracepoint(const char *tp_category,
attr.type = PERF_TYPE_TRACEPOINT;
attr.size = attr_sz;
attr.config = tp_id;
+ attr.inherit = 1;
- pfd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, -1 /* pid */, 0 /* cpu */,
+ pfd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, 0 /* pid */, 0 /* cpu */,
-1 /* group_fd */, PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC);
if (pfd < 0) {
err = -errno;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..01bbf1d1ab52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach.c
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "tp_attach.skel.h"
+
+void test_tp_attach(void)
+{
+ struct tp_attach *skel;
+ int pid;
+
+ skel = tp_attach__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tp_attach__open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ skel->bss->pid = getpid();
+
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(tp_attach__attach(skel), "tp_attach__attach"))
+ goto out;
+
+ getpid();
+
+ pid = fork();
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(pid, 0, "fork"))
+ goto out;
+ if (pid == 0)
+ _exit(0);
+ waitpid(pid, NULL, 0);
+
+ getpid();
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->executed, 2, "executed");
+
+out:
+ tp_attach__destroy(skel);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tp_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tp_attach.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d9450d2eac17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tp_attach.c
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+int pid;
+int executed;
+
+SEC("tp/syscalls/sys_enter_getpid")
+int test(void *ctx)
+{
+ if (pid == (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32))
+ executed++;
+ return 0;
+}
