linux.git/include/linux/uprobes.h, branch v3.9-rc2

uprobes: Introduce uprobe_apply()

2013-02-08T17:28:04+00:00

Currently it is not possible to change the filtering constraints after
uprobe_register(), so a consumer can not, say, start to trace a task/mm
which was previously filtered out, or remove the no longer needed bp's.

Introduce uprobe_apply() which simply does register_for_each_vma() again
to consult uprobe_consumer->filter() and install/remove the breakpoints.
The only complication is that register_for_each_vma() can no longer
assume that uprobe->consumers should be consulter if is_register == T,
so we change it to accept "struct uprobe_consumer *new" instead.

Unlike uprobe_register(), uprobe_apply(true) doesn't do "unregister" if
register_for_each_vma() fails, it is up to caller to handle the error.

Note: we probably need to cleanup the current interface, it is strange
that uprobe_apply/unregister need inode/offset. We should either change
uprobe_register() to return "struct uprobe *", or add a private ->uprobe
member in uprobe_consumer. And in the long term uprobe_apply() should
take a single argument, uprobe or consumer, even "bool add" should go
away.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov

uprobes: Teach handler_chain() to filter out the probed task

2013-02-08T16:47:11+00:00

Currrently the are 2 problems with pre-filtering:

1. It is not possible to add/remove a task (mm) after uprobe_register()

2. A forked child inherits all breakpoints and uprobe_consumer can not
   control this.

This patch does the first step to improve the filtering. handler_chain()
removes the breakpoints installed by this uprobe from current->mm if all
handlers return UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE.

Note that handler_chain() relies on ->register_rwsem to avoid the race
with uprobe_register/unregister which can add/del a consumer, or even
remove and then insert the new uprobe at the same address.

Perhaps we will add uprobe_apply_mm(uprobe, mm, is_register) and teach
copy_mm() to do filter(UPROBE_FILTER_FORK), but I think this change makes
sense anyway.

Note: instead of checking the retcode from uc->handler, we could add
uc->filter(UPROBE_FILTER_BPHIT). But I think this is not optimal to
call 2 hooks in a row. This buys nothing, and if handler/filter do
something nontrivial they will probably do the same work twice.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Reintroduce uprobe_consumer->filter()

2013-02-08T16:47:10+00:00

Finally add uprobe_consumer->filter() and change consumer_filter()
to actually call this method.

Note that ->filter() accepts mm_struct, not task_struct. Because:

	1. We do not have for_each_mm_user(mm, task).

	2. Even if we implement for_each_mm_user(), ->filter() can
	   use it itself.

	3. It is not clear who will actually need this interface to
	   do the "nontrivial" filtering.

Another argument is "enum uprobe_filter_ctx", consumer->filter() can
use it to figure out why/where it was called. For example, perhaps
we can add UPROBE_FILTER_PRE_REGISTER used by build_map_info() to
quickly "nack" the unwanted mm's. In this case consumer should know
that it is called under ->i_mmap_mutex.

See the previous discussion at http://marc.info/?t=135214229700002
Perhaps we should pass more arguments, vma/vaddr?

Note: this patch obviously can't help to filter out the child created
by fork(), this will be addressed later.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Kill uprobe_consumer->filter()

2013-02-08T16:47:02+00:00

uprobe_consumer->filter() is pointless in its current form, kill it.

We will add it back, but with the different signature/semantics. Perhaps
we will even re-introduce the callsite in handler_chain(), but not to
just skip uc->handler().

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Use percpu_rw_semaphore to fix register/unregister vs dup_mmap() race

2012-11-16T13:52:51+00:00

This was always racy, but 268720903f87e0b84b161626c4447b81671b5d18
"uprobes: Rework register_for_each_vma() to make it O(n)" should be
blamed anyway, it made everything worse and I didn't notice.

register/unregister call build_map_info() and then do install/remove
breakpoint for every mm which mmaps inode/offset. This can obviously
race with fork()->dup_mmap() in between and we can miss the child.

uprobe_register() could be easily fixed but unregister is much worse,
the new mm inherits "int3" from parent and there is no way to detect
this if uprobe goes away.

So this patch simply adds percpu_down_read/up_read around dup_mmap(),
and percpu_down_write/up_write into register_for_each_vma().

This adds 2 new hooks into dup_mmap() but we can kill uprobe_dup_mmap()
and fold it into uprobe_end_dup_mmap().

Reported-by: Srikar Dronamraju 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju 
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov

uprobes: Kill arch_uprobe_enable/disable_step() hooks

2012-11-03T16:15:13+00:00

Kill arch_uprobe_enable/disable_step() hooks, they do nothing and
nobody needs them.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Introduce prepare_uprobe()

2012-10-07T19:19:42+00:00

Preparation. Extract the copy_insn/arch_uprobe_analyze_insn code
from install_breakpoint() into the new helper, prepare_uprobe().

And move uprobe->flags defines from uprobes.h to uprobes.c, nobody
else can use them anyway.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Kill UTASK_BP_HIT state

2012-09-29T19:21:53+00:00

Kill UTASK_BP_HIT state, it buys nothing but complicates the code.
It is only used in uprobe_notify_resume() to decide who should be
called, we can check utask->active_uprobe != NULL instead. And this
allows us to simplify handle_swbp(), no need to clear utask->state.

Likewise we could kill UTASK_SSTEP, but UTASK_BP_HIT is worse and
imho should die. The problem is, it creates the special case when
task->utask is NULL, we can't distinguish RUNNING and BP_HIT. With
this patch utask == NULL always means RUNNING.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Introduce arch_uprobe_enable/disable_step()

2012-09-15T15:37:28+00:00

As Oleg pointed out in [0] uprobe should not use the ptrace interface
for enabling/disabling single stepping.

[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120730141638.GA5306@redhat.com

Add the new "__weak arch" helpers which simply call user_*_single_step()
as a preparation. This is only needed to not break the powerpc port, we
will fold this logic into arch_uprobe_pre/post_xol() hooks later.

We should also change handle_singlestep(), _disable_step(&uprobe->arch)
should be called before put_uprobe().

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju

uprobes: Remove "verify" argument from set_orig_insn()

2012-08-28T16:21:20+00:00

Nobody does set_orig_insn(verify => false), and I think nobody will.
Remove this argument. IIUC set_orig_insn(verify => false) was needed
to single-step without xol area.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov 
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju