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

[Masami Hiramatsu]

Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:02:20PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Lately I've been testing with an allyesconfig. When I ran the function graph
> > > tracer, it immediately crashed the kernel. Thanks to the new frame pointer
> > > test in function graph, it reported directly what the issue was and then
> > > panicked the kernel to prevent any unexpected damage from happening.
> > >
> > > It pointed the error to be with jtcp_rcv_established. Which is a jprobe
> > > function added to tcp_rcv_established at bootup when CONFIG_NET_TCPPROBE
> > > is enabled.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> I'm not sure I've well understood how is performed the call to the jprobe
> handler.
> But if I understand well we have:
>
> 	func() {
> 		int3() {
> 			jprobe_handler() {
> 				(-)
> 				set ip after iret to user_handler()
> 			}
> 		}
> 		user_handler() {
> 			jprobe_return() {
> 				(+)
> 				int3() {
> 					set ip after iret to func+...()
> 				}
> 			       |
> 			       |
> 			       |
>                  <--------------
>                  (execute the rest of func())
> 	}
>
> If we replace (-) with pause_graph_tracing() and (+) with
> unpause_graph_tracing(), this should do the trick...I hope.

I'm not so sure about pause_graph_tracing(), however, it seems that
int3() and jprobe_handler() already pushed on the stack of the
func graph tracer at (-). If it's true, where are those entries
popped up?

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx

--
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/