Le 01/05/2024 à 18:29, Stephen Brennan a écrit : > If an error happens in ftrace, ftrace_kill() will prevent disarming > kprobes. Eventually, the ftrace_ops associated with the kprobes will be > freed, yet the kprobes will still be active, and when triggered, they > will use the freed memory, likely resulting in a page fault and panic. > > This behavior can be reproduced quite easily, by creating a kprobe and > then triggering a ftrace_kill(). For simplicity, we can simulate an > ftrace error with a kernel module like [1]: > > [1]: https://github.com/brenns10/kernel_stuff/tree/master/ftrace_killer > > sudo perf probe --add commit_creds > sudo perf trace -e probe:commit_creds > # In another terminal > make > sudo insmod ftrace_killer.ko # calls ftrace_kill(), simulating bug > # Back to perf terminal > # ctrl-c > sudo perf probe --del commit_creds > > After a short period, a page fault and panic would occur as the kprobe > continues to execute and uses the freed ftrace_ops. While ftrace_kill() > is supposed to be used only in extreme circumstances, it is invoked in > FTRACE_WARN_ON() and so there are many places where an unexpected bug > could be triggered, yet the system may continue operating, possibly > without the administrator noticing. If ftrace_kill() does not panic the > system, then we should do everything we can to continue operating, > rather than leave a ticking time bomb. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes in v3: > Don't expose ftrace_is_dead(). Create a "kprobe_ftrace_disabled" > variable and check it directly in the kprobe handlers. Isn't it safer to provide a fonction rather than a direct access to a variable ? By the way, wouldn't it be more performant to use a static branch (jump label) ? Christophe
