Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Sun Apr 15 2012 - 15:54:54 EST


On 04/15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 22:52 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > - can it work or I missed something "in general" ?
> > >
> > > So we insert in the rb-tree before we take mmap_sem, this means we can
> > > hit a non-uprobe int3 and still find a uprobe there, no?
> >
> > Yes, but unless I miss something this is "off-topic", this
> > can happen with or without these changes. If find_uprobe()
> > succeeds we assume that this bp was inserted by uprobe.
>
> OK, but then I completely missed what the point of that
> down_write() stuff is..

To ensure handle_swbp() can't race with unregister + register
and send the wrong SIGTRAP.

handle_swbp() roughly does under down_read(mmap_sem)


if (find_uprobe(vaddr))
process_uprobe();
else
if (is_swbp_at_addr_fast(vaddr)) // non-uprobe int3
send_sig(SIGTRAP);
else
restart_insn(vaddr); // raced with unregister


note that is_swbp_at_addr_fast() is used (currently) to detect
the race with upbrobe_unregister() and that is why we can remove
uprobes_srcu.

But if find_uprobe() fails, there is a window before
is_swbp_at_addr_fast() reads the memory. Suppose that the next
uprobe_register() inserts the new uprobe at the same address.
In this case the task will be wrongly killed.

Oleg.

--
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/