From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>,
martin.lau@linux.dev, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] rethook: Remove warning messages printed for finding return address of a frame.
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:16:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d32fddd-a128-400b-bf63-2da2b3971669@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240408101326.2392a79de4bfe1e677faeff0@kernel.org>
On 4/7/24 18:13, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:36:25 +0200
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@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.li@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?
No, the BPF doesn't stop the task or copy the stack. The last part tries
to explain that this function can still return an incorrect address even
with this check. And calling this function on a target task that is not
"current" is safe. Since you think it is confusing. I will remove this
part.
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
You are right! I should rephrase it. In a firm with a large number of
hosts, this warning message become a noise.
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.li@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 <andrii@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
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-08 17:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-01 19:16 [PATCH bpf-next] rethook: Remove warning messages printed for finding return address of a frame Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-02 16:58 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-03 14:36 ` Daniel Borkmann
2024-04-08 1:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-04-08 17:16 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2024-04-03 22:15 ` John Fastabend
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0d32fddd-a128-400b-bf63-2da2b3971669@gmail.com \
--to=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).