Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] tracing/kprobes: prevent jprobes from crashingfunction graph tracer

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:17:33 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:02 -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > 
> > > Jprobes and the function graph tracer use the same mechanism to trace
> > > the exit of a function. Unfortunately, only one can be done at a time.
> > > The function graph tracer replaces the return address with its own handler,
> > > but so does jprobes. The two are not compatible.
> > 
> > AFAIK, Jprobe doesn't trace the exit of a function. I assume that
> > jprobe's user handler causes the problem, since the handler never
> > returns normal way.
> > Instead of that, it just calls jprobe_return() which causes
> > int3 to be trapped by kprobe's break handler. And the break handler
> > fixup regs->ip to back to traced function.
> 
> Ah, yes, my documenting this is wrong. It's the skipped jprobe that
> messed it up.
> 
> > 
> > Actually, this will cause a problem with function graph tracer.
> > The f-g-tracer push the return address into the special stack and replaces
> > it with fixup function (This is similar (not same) mechanism of kretprobe.)
> > And then the traced function returns, it returns to the fixup function and
> > it pops the return address up and back to the real caller.
> > 
> > So, if the f-g-tracer traces jprobe user handler, the pop operation
> > will be skipped because the the handler never returns.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> > 
> > > The solution I am proposing with this patch set is to add a call in
> > > ftrace that lets other code in the kernel permanently disable functions from
> > > being traced by the function and function graph tracer. As a probe function
> > > is registered with jprobes, it calls this new function and that entry
> > > will be removed from being traced.
> > >
> > > I tested this with this patch series and it does solve the problem.
> > > 
> > > Some issues though:
> > > 
> > > 1) this only works when DYNAMIC_FTRACE is enabled. We can prevent
> > > function graph tracing with jprobes when DYNAMIC_FTRACE is not
> > > enabled through Kconfig dependencies. Or have the registering of
> > > a jprobe permanently disable function graph tracing.
> > 
> > IMHO, those *probe handler should be tagged as __kprobes and notrace.
> 
> Yeah, I agree. But how do you guarantee that it does. If one forgets,
> than we still have the issue. We can perhaps test to make sure the
> function is in the kprobes section. But that does not mean they will not
> be notraced. The __kprobes and notrace are no longer in the same set.
> 
> > 
> > > 2) This also prevents the function tracer from being able to trace a
> > > function probe, even though the function tracer is not at issue
> > > with this bug.
> > 
> > I think we can skip those user handlers, because those are irregular
> > functions and user can control (enable/disable) it.
> 
> True, but it may be nice to still trace them.
> 
> > 
> > BTW, in this specific case, I assume that it can use tracepoint
> > instead of jprobe and move tcp_probe to a part of ftrace :-), isn't it?
> > (Or, if it is just for a debugging, Systemtap can help it.)
> 
> That's a question for the networking guys.
> 

tcp_probe is simple tool used for research graphs, there are scripts
and stuff wrapped around it. If you keep the ABI, go ahead and convert
it to ftrace.

-- 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/