On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 07:30:33PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:16 AM Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 05:46:21PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 5:22 AM Jiri Olsa <jo...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Some kernels builds might inline vfs_getattr call within > > > > fstat syscall code path, so fentry/vfs_getattr trampoline > > > > is not called. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how to handle this in some generic way other > > > > than use some other function, but that might get inlined at > > > > some point as well. > > > > > > It's great that we had the test and it failed. > > > Doing the test skipping will only hide the problem. > > > Please don't do it here and in the future. > > > Instead let's figure out the real solution. > > > Assuming that vfs_getattr was added to btf_allowlist_d_path > > > for a reason we have to make this introspection place > > > reliable regardless of compiler inlining decisions. > > > We can mark it as 'noinline', but that's undesirable. > > > I suggest we remove it from the allowlist and replace it with > > > security_inode_getattr. > > > I think that is a better long term fix. > > > > in my case vfs_getattr got inlined in vfs_statx_fd and both > > of them are defined in fs/stat.c > > > > so the idea is that inlining will not happen if the function > > is defined in another object? or less likely..? > > when it's in a different .o file. yes. > Very few folks build LTO kernels, so I propose to cross that bridge when > we get there. > Eventually we can replace security_inode_getattr > with bpf_lsm_inode_getattr or simply add noinline to security_inode_getattr. > > > we should be safe when it's called from module > > what do you mean?
it's external call, so it will not get inlined > > > > While at it I would apply the same critical thinking to other > > > functions in the allowlist. They might suffer the same issue. > > > So s/vfs_truncate/security_path_truncate/ and so on? > > > Things won't work when CONFIG_SECURITY is off, but that is a rare kernel > > > config? > > > Or add both security_* and vfs_* variants and switch tests to use > > > security_* ? > > > but it feels fragile to allow inline-able funcs in allowlist. > > > > hm, what's the difference between vfs_getattr and security_inode_getattr > > in this regard? I'd expect compiler could inline it same way as for > > vfs_getattr > > not really because they're in different files and LTO is not on. > Even with LTO the chances of inlining are small. The compiler will > consider profitability of it. Since there is a loop inside, it's unlikely. ok, thanks for info I'll use that security_inode_getattr instead of vfs_getattr jirka
