lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [kprobes/x86] a19b2e3d78: WARNING:at_kernel/locking/lockdep.c:#trace_hardirqs_off_caller
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 18:05:43 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:46:05AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:33:16 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > > [ 87.018115] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 87.025046] trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
> > > > [ 87.034185] setjmp_pre_handler+0x6c/0x95
> > > > [ 87.043738] kprobe_ftrace_handler+0xc3/0xf4
> > >
> > >
> > > So setjmp_pre_handler() does:
> > >
> > > regs->flags &= ~X86_EFLAGS_IF;
> > > trace_hardirqs_off();
> > > regs->ip = (unsigned long)(jp->entry);
> > >
> > > Which clears IF on the regs, but those will only take effect after an
> > > IRET, not instantly. This messes up he IRQ state tracing, which you're
> > > telling it will instantly disable IRQs.
> >
> > Thanks for analyzing!
> > And right, since IRQ should be off while jump handler, it changes
> > regs->flags. (but ...why?)
>
> Otherwise the IRET could re-enable interrupts?

Ah, I meant why IRQ should be disabled... It doesn't guarantee to
avoid nested kprobes (since another kprobe can be hit in jprobe
handler).

> > > A possible 'fix' would be to do local_irq_disable() in front of that,
> > > but I got pretty lost in that stuff so I can't say for sure if that
> > > makes sense or not.
> >
> > I'm not sure how lockdep traces irq-disabling state, but it seems
> > that "enabling" irq state(trace_hardirqs_on()) is already missing
> > from kprobes.
>
> If you could point me at where that is supposed to happen I can have a
> look at how that tracing works. I got lost in the code this morning.

The right place to decrement irq counter(trace_hardirqs_on()) should
be longjmp_break_handler(), which recovers flags register with other
registers from kcb->jprobe_saved_regs, and IRET recovers IF.
(maybe it doesn't count inc/dec correctly, isn't it?)

> > I'm considering to remove disabling-irq itself from jprobe.
> > (Frankly to say, I would like to remove jprobe itself...)
>
> That would obviously also solve all problems :-)

Yeah, for long term it needs to be removed :)

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-03 03:11    [W:0.061 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site