On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:03 AM Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Andrii,
>
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:45:59AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > uprobe->register_rwsem is one of a few big bottlenecks to scalability of
> > uprobes, so we need to get rid of it to improve uprobe performance and
> > multi-CPU scalability.
> >
> > First, we turn uprobe's consumer list to a typical doubly-linked list
> > and utilize existing RCU-aware helpers for traversing such lists, as
> > well as adding and removing elements from it.
> >
> > For entry uprobes we already have SRCU protection active since before
> > uprobe lookup. For uretprobe we keep refcount, guaranteeing that uprobe
> > won't go away from under us, but we add SRCU protection around consumer
> > list traversal.
>
> I am seeing the following message in a kernel with RCU_PROVE_LOCKING:
>
> kernel/events/uprobes.c:937 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!
>
> It seems the SRCU is not held, when coming from mmap_region ->
> uprobe_mmap. Here is the message I got in my debug kernel. (sorry for
> not decoding it, but, the stack trace is clear enough).
>
> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01152-gc688a96c432e #26 Tainted: G W E N
> -----------------------------
> kernel/events/uprobes.c:938 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> 3 locks held by env/441330:
> #0: ffff00021c1bc508 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: vm_mmap_pgoff+0x84/0x1d0
> #1: ffff800089f3ab48 (&uprobes_mmap_mutex[i]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: uprobe_mmap+0x20c/0x548
> #2: ffff0004e564c528 (&uprobe->consumer_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: filter_chain+0x30/0xe8
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 4 UID: 34133 PID: 441330 Comm: env Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W E N 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01152-gc688a96c432e #26
> Tainted: [W]=WARN, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE, [N]=TEST
> Hardware name: Quanta S7GM 20S7GCU0010/S7G MB (CG1), BIOS 3D22 07/03/2024
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x10c/0x198
> show_stack+0x24/0x38
> __dump_stack+0x28/0x38
> dump_stack_lvl+0x74/0xa8
> dump_stack+0x18/0x28
> lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x178/0x2c8
> filter_chain+0xdc/0xe8
> uprobe_mmap+0x2e0/0x548
> mmap_region+0x510/0x988
> do_mmap+0x444/0x528
> vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf8/0x1d0
> ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x184/0x2d8
>
>
> That said, it seems we want to hold the SRCU, before reaching the
> filter_chain(). I hacked a bit, and adding the lock in uprobe_mmap()
> solves the problem, but, I might be missing something, since I am not familiar
> with this code.
>
> How does the following patch look like?
>
> commit 1bd7bcf03031ceca86fdddd8be2e5500497db29f
> Author: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon Nov 4 06:53:31 2024 -0800
>
> uprobes: Get SRCU lock before traverseing the list
>
> list_for_each_entry_srcu() is being called without holding the lock,
> which causes LOCKDEP (when enabled with RCU_PROVING) to complain such
> as:
>
> kernel/events/uprobes.c:937 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!
>
> Get the SRCU uprobes_srcu lock before calling filter_chain(), which
> needs to have the SRCU lock hold, since it is going to call
> list_for_each_entry_srcu().
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: cc01bd044e6a ("uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly under SRCU protection")
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 4b52cb2ae6d62..cc9d4ddeea9a6 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1391,6 +1391,7 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> struct list_head tmp_list;
> struct uprobe *uprobe, *u;
> struct inode *inode;
> + int srcu_idx;
>
> if (no_uprobe_events())
> return 0;
> @@ -1409,6 +1410,7 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>
> mutex_lock(uprobes_mmap_hash(inode));
> build_probe_list(inode, vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, &tmp_list);
> + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
Hey Breno,
Thanks for catching that (production testing FTW, right?!).
But I think you a) adding wrong RCU protection flavor (it has to be
rcu_read_lock_trace()/rcu_read_unlock_trace(), see uprobe_apply() for
an example) and b) I think this is the wrong place to add it. We
should add it inside filter_chain(). filter_chain() is called from
three places, only one of which is already RCU protected (that's the
handler_chain() case). But there is also register_for_each_vma(),
which needs RCU protection as well.
So can you resend the patch as a stand-alone patch, switch to RCU
Tasks Trace flavor, and add the protection inside filter_chain()?
Thank you!
P.S. pending_list traversal that you (accidentally) protect as well in
your patch doesn't need RCU protection, so there is no problem with
moving into filter_chain() for RCU stuff.
> /*
> * We can race with uprobe_unregister(), this uprobe can be already
> * removed. But in this case filter_chain() must return false, all
> @@ -1422,6 +1424,7 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> }
> put_uprobe(uprobe);
> }
> + srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
> mutex_unlock(uprobes_mmap_hash(inode));
>
> return 0;
>
