[PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function

Jiri Olsa posted 9 patches 2 months, 3 weeks ago
Only 8 patches received!
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
Posted by Jiri Olsa 2 months, 3 weeks ago
Adding update_ftrace_direct_del function that removes all entries
(ip -> addr) provided in hash argument to direct ftrace ops and
updates its attachments.

The difference to current unregister_ftrace_direct is
 - hash argument that allows to unregister multiple ip -> direct
   entries at once
 - we can call update_ftrace_direct_del multiple times on the
   same ftrace_ops object, becase we do not need to unregister
   all entries at once, we can do it gradualy with the help of
   ftrace_update_ops function

This change will allow us to have simple ftrace_ops for all bpf
direct interface users in following changes.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
 include/linux/ftrace.h |  6 +++
 kernel/trace/ftrace.c  | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
index ded3a306a8b2..433c36c3af3b 100644
--- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
+++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
@@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
 int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
 
 int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
+int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
 
 void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp(void);
 
@@ -575,6 +576,11 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
 	return -ENODEV;
 }
 
+int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
+{
+	return -ENODEV;
+}
+
 /*
  * This must be implemented by the architecture.
  * It is the way the ftrace direct_ops helper, when called
diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
index 0b6e1af8f922..3dd1e69aceca 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
@@ -6376,6 +6376,105 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
 	return err;
 }
 
+/**
+ * hash_sub - substracts @b from @a and returns the result
+ * @a: struct ftrace_hash object
+ * @b: struct ftrace_hash object
+ *
+ * Returns struct ftrace_hash object on success, NULL on error.
+ */
+static struct ftrace_hash *hash_sub(struct ftrace_hash *a, struct ftrace_hash *b)
+{
+	struct ftrace_func_entry *entry, *del;
+	struct ftrace_hash *sub;
+	int size, i;
+
+	sub = alloc_and_copy_ftrace_hash(a->size_bits, a);
+	if (!sub)
+		goto error;
+
+	size = 1 << b->size_bits;
+	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
+		hlist_for_each_entry(entry, &b->buckets[i], hlist) {
+			del = __ftrace_lookup_ip(sub, entry->ip);
+			if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!del))
+				goto error;
+			remove_hash_entry(sub, del);
+			kfree(del);
+		}
+	}
+	return sub;
+
+ error:
+	free_ftrace_hash(sub);
+	return NULL;
+}
+
+int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
+{
+	struct ftrace_hash *new_hash = NULL, *filter_hash = NULL, *free_hash = NULL;
+	struct ftrace_func_entry *del, *entry;
+	unsigned long size, i;
+	int err = -EINVAL;
+
+	if (!hash_count(hash))
+		return 0;
+	if (check_direct_multi(ops))
+		return -EINVAL;
+	if (!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED))
+		return -EINVAL;
+	if (direct_functions == EMPTY_HASH)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	mutex_lock(&direct_mutex);
+
+	/* Make sure requested entries are already registered. */
+	size = 1 << hash->size_bits;
+	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
+		hlist_for_each_entry(entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) {
+			del = __ftrace_lookup_ip(direct_functions, entry->ip);
+			if (!del || del->direct != entry->direct)
+				goto out_unlock;
+		}
+	}
+
+	err = -ENOMEM;
+	filter_hash = hash_sub(ops->func_hash->filter_hash, hash);
+	if (!filter_hash)
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	new_hash = hash_sub(direct_functions, hash);
+	if (!new_hash)
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	/* If there's nothing left, we need to unregister the ops. */
+	if (ftrace_hash_empty(filter_hash)) {
+		err = unregister_ftrace_function(ops);
+		/* cleanup for possible another register call */
+		ops->func = NULL;
+		ops->trampoline = 0;
+		ftrace_free_filter(ops);
+		ops->func_hash->filter_hash = NULL;
+	} else {
+		err = ftrace_update_ops(ops, filter_hash, EMPTY_HASH);
+	}
+
+	if (!err) {
+		free_hash = direct_functions;
+		rcu_assign_pointer(direct_functions, new_hash);
+	}
+
+ out_unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&direct_mutex);
+
+	if (free_hash && free_hash != EMPTY_HASH)
+		call_rcu_tasks(&free_hash->rcu, register_ftrace_direct_cb);
+	if (filter_hash)
+		free_ftrace_hash(filter_hash);
+
+	return err;
+}
+
 #endif /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS */
 
 /**
-- 
2.51.1
Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
Posted by bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org 2 months, 3 weeks ago
> diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> index ded3a306a..433c36c3a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> @@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
>  int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
>
>  int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
> +int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
>
>  void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp(void);

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 311ce6406..345f3fdd2 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c

[ ... ]

> +int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
> +{
> +	struct ftrace_hash *new_hash = NULL, *filter_hash = NULL, *free_hash = NULL;
> +	struct ftrace_func_entry *del, *entry;
> +	unsigned long size, i;
> +	int err = -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (!hash_count(hash))
> +		return 0;
> +	if (check_direct_multi(ops))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (direct_functions == EMPTY_HASH)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&direct_mutex);
> +
> +	/* Make sure requested entries are already registered. */
> +	size = 1 << hash->size_bits;
> +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> +		hlist_for_each_entry(entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) {
> +			del = __ftrace_lookup_ip(direct_functions, entry->ip);
> +			if (!del || del->direct != entry->direct)
> +				goto out_unlock;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	err = -ENOMEM;
> +	filter_hash = hash_sub(ops->func_hash->filter_hash, hash);
> +	if (!filter_hash)
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +
> +	new_hash = hash_sub(direct_functions, hash);
> +	if (!new_hash)
> +		goto out_unlock;

Can this leak new_hash?  If hash_sub() succeeds for both filter_hash
and new_hash, but then either unregister_ftrace_function() or
ftrace_update_ops() fails below, we goto out_unlock without freeing
new_hash.  The cleanup code only frees filter_hash:

> +
> +	/* If there's nothing left, we need to unregister the ops. */
> +	if (ftrace_hash_empty(filter_hash)) {
> +		err = unregister_ftrace_function(ops);
> +		/* cleanup for possible another register call */
> +		ops->func = NULL;
> +		ops->trampoline = 0;
> +		ftrace_free_filter(ops);
> +		ops->func_hash->filter_hash = NULL;
> +	} else {
> +		err = ftrace_update_ops(ops, filter_hash, EMPTY_HASH);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!err) {
> +		free_hash = direct_functions;
> +		rcu_assign_pointer(direct_functions, new_hash);
> +	}
> +
> + out_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&direct_mutex);
> +
> +	if (free_hash && free_hash != EMPTY_HASH)
> +		call_rcu_tasks(&free_hash->rcu, register_ftrace_direct_cb);
> +	if (filter_hash)
> +		free_ftrace_hash(filter_hash);
> +
> +	return err;
> +}

If err != 0, new_hash remains allocated but is never freed.  Should the
cleanup code add free_ftrace_hash(new_hash) when it's non-NULL?


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19332026793
Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
Posted by Jiri Olsa 2 months, 3 weeks ago
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:02:21PM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > index ded3a306a..433c36c3a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > @@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
> >  int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
> >
> >  int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
> > +int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
> >
> >  void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp(void);
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index 311ce6406..345f3fdd2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > +int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
> > +{
> > +	struct ftrace_hash *new_hash = NULL, *filter_hash = NULL, *free_hash = NULL;
> > +	struct ftrace_func_entry *del, *entry;
> > +	unsigned long size, i;
> > +	int err = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (!hash_count(hash))
> > +		return 0;
> > +	if (check_direct_multi(ops))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if (!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if (direct_functions == EMPTY_HASH)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&direct_mutex);
> > +
> > +	/* Make sure requested entries are already registered. */
> > +	size = 1 << hash->size_bits;
> > +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> > +		hlist_for_each_entry(entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) {
> > +			del = __ftrace_lookup_ip(direct_functions, entry->ip);
> > +			if (!del || del->direct != entry->direct)
> > +				goto out_unlock;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	err = -ENOMEM;
> > +	filter_hash = hash_sub(ops->func_hash->filter_hash, hash);
> > +	if (!filter_hash)
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +	new_hash = hash_sub(direct_functions, hash);
> > +	if (!new_hash)
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> 
> Can this leak new_hash?  If hash_sub() succeeds for both filter_hash
> and new_hash, but then either unregister_ftrace_function() or
> ftrace_update_ops() fails below, we goto out_unlock without freeing
> new_hash.  The cleanup code only frees filter_hash:
> 
> > +
> > +	/* If there's nothing left, we need to unregister the ops. */
> > +	if (ftrace_hash_empty(filter_hash)) {
> > +		err = unregister_ftrace_function(ops);
> > +		/* cleanup for possible another register call */
> > +		ops->func = NULL;
> > +		ops->trampoline = 0;
> > +		ftrace_free_filter(ops);
> > +		ops->func_hash->filter_hash = NULL;
> > +	} else {
> > +		err = ftrace_update_ops(ops, filter_hash, EMPTY_HASH);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!err) {
> > +		free_hash = direct_functions;
> > +		rcu_assign_pointer(direct_functions, new_hash);
> > +	}
> > +
> > + out_unlock:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&direct_mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (free_hash && free_hash != EMPTY_HASH)
> > +		call_rcu_tasks(&free_hash->rcu, register_ftrace_direct_cb);
> > +	if (filter_hash)
> > +		free_ftrace_hash(filter_hash);
> > +
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> 
> If err != 0, new_hash remains allocated but is never freed.  Should the
> cleanup code add free_ftrace_hash(new_hash) when it's non-NULL?

yep, that's a miss, will fix

thanks,
jirka