lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] markers: fix unchecked format

No.

1)
In current code, when the second, third... probe is registered
with the same marker name, its format is not checked.

marker_probe_register("marker_name", "field1 %s", XXX);
marker_probe_register("marker_name", "field1 %d", XXX);

the second call, "field1 %d" is not check for ever.
and this probe may cause kernel core-dump.

because these two probes share the same marker_entry, and
we do not check the format when they are being shared.

if several probes share the same marker_entry we should
make sure all these probes's format are the same.

2)
set_marker() check marker's format with marker_entry's format
my fix change marker_probe_register(),
and marker_probe_register() check probes' format with marker_entry's format.

they are not duplicate check.

3)
my patch change marker_probe_register(), and this fix can not
make the module load fail in an condition.
for: marker_update_probe_range() return void.

Thanks, Lai.

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Lai Jiangshan (laijs@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>> when the second, third... probe is registered, its format is
>> not checked, this patch fix it.
>>
>
> It's already checked here :
>
> marker_update_probes
> marker_update_probe_range
> set_marker
>
> if ((*entry)->format) {
> if (strcmp((*entry)->format, elem->format) != 0) {
> printk(KERN_NOTICE
> "Format mismatch for probe %s "
> "(%s), marker (%s)\n",
> (*entry)->name,
> (*entry)->format,
> elem->format);
> return -EPERM;
> }
> } else {
> ret = marker_set_format(entry, elem->format);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> }
>
> Given that marker_probe_register can be called to connect a probe to a
> marker which does not exist yet (e.g. marker in a module not loaded), I
> am not sure it makes sense to check for format string mismatch so early
> in marker_probe_register (the moment it adds the marker to the hash
> table). That's actually why I chose to leave it in later stage which
> does the actual connection of the probes to the markers
> (marker_update_probes).
>
> If you really want to check it earlier, how do you plan to deal with
> this scenario ?
>
> 1 - a marker probe is registered for markerA with format string
> "field1 %s"
> 2 - a module is loaded, which contains a marker markerA with format
> string "field1 %d"
>
> I think it would be _really_ bad to make the module load fail because of
> a marker format string mismatch... this is why I chose just to give a
> warning in set_marker, which is shown when the markers are updated,
> which happens when the module is loaded and when the marker hash table
> is modified.
>
> Mathieu
>
>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/kernel/marker.c b/kernel/marker.c
>> index 4440a09..1196a6b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/marker.c
>> +++ b/kernel/marker.c
>> @@ -651,11 +651,17 @@ int marker_probe_register(const char *name, const char *format,
>> entry = get_marker(name);
>> if (!entry) {
>> entry = add_marker(name, format);
>> - if (IS_ERR(entry)) {
>> + if (IS_ERR(entry))
>> ret = PTR_ERR(entry);
>> - goto end;
>> - }
>> + } else if (format) {
>> + if (!entry->format)
>> + ret = marker_set_format(&entry, format);
>> + else if (strcmp(entry->format, format))
>> + ret = -EPERM;
>> }
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto end;
>> +
>> /*
>> * If we detect that a call_rcu is pending for this marker,
>> * make sure it's executed now.
>>
>>
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-08 07:09    [W:0.044 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site