On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:36:25 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> On 4/2/24 6:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:16 PM Kui-Feng Lee <thinker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> rethook_find_ret_addr() prints a warning message and returns 0 when the > >> target task is running and not the "current" task to prevent returning an > >> incorrect return address. However, this check is incomplete as the target > >> task can still transition to the running state when finding the return > >> address, although it is safe with RCU. Could you tell me more about this last part? This change just remove WARN_ON_ONCE() which warns that the user tries to unwind stack of a running task. This means the task can change the stack in parallel if the task is running on other CPU. Does the BPF stop the task? or do you have any RCU magic to copy the stack? > >> > >> The issue we encounter is that the kernel frequently prints warning > >> messages when BPF profiling programs call to bpf_get_task_stack() on > >> running tasks. Hmm, WARN_ON_ONCE should print it once, not frequently. > >> > >> The callers should be aware and willing to take the risk of receiving an > >> incorrect return address from a task that is currently running other than > >> the "current" one. A warning is not needed here as the callers are intent > >> on it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > >> index fa03094e9e69..4297a132a7ae 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > >> +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > >> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ unsigned long rethook_find_ret_addr(struct task_struct > >> *tsk, unsigned long frame > >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cur)) > >> return 0; > >> > >> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk != current && task_is_running(tsk))) > >> + if (tsk != current && task_is_running(tsk)) > >> return 0; > >> > > > > This should probably go through Masami's tree, but the change makes > > sense to me, given this is an expected condition. > > > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <and...@kernel.org> > > Masami, I assume you'll pick this up? OK, anyway it will just return 0 if this situation happens, and caller will get the trampoline address instead of correct return address in this case. I think it does not do any unsafe things. So I agree removing it. But I think the explanation is a bit confusing. Thank you, > > Thanks, > Daniel -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org>
