-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 137
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
More flexibility regarding which system calls are intercepted by Hijack #201
Comments
rump-hijack manpage describing some additional features useful for LKL as well |
Yes, interference is the main issue. Think about all the filesystem calls needed to read various files from the host system (e.g. /etc/ld.so.cache), mmap to map host libraries, etc. Do you have specific system calls you need supported? |
I am mostly thinking that it's impossible to support all system calls with a hijack library due to various limitations of hijacking. it's a magic indeed but not panacea in my experience. and if we want more LKL syscalls supported, we may need something different as I'm (and a rump guy is) attempting with https://github.com/libos-nuse/frankenlibc (and coupling musl-libc etc). but you're right @Rondom, librumphijack is much flexible right now and we can improve as they did. Especially specifying the scope of hijack is a good way. I'm even thinking to share/reuse their code (i.e., librumphijack) in LKL but not tried it yet. |
Syzkaller fuzzer managed to trigger this: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/shmem.c:852 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 529, name: khugepaged 3 locks held by khugepaged/529: #0: (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff818d7ef1>] shrink_slab.part.59+0x121/0xd30 mm/vmscan.c:451 #1: (&type->s_umount_key#29){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff81a63630>] trylock_super+0x20/0x100 fs/super.c:392 #2: (&(&sbinfo->shrinklist_lock)->rlock){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff818fd83e>] spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:302 [inline] #2: (&(&sbinfo->shrinklist_lock)->rlock){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff818fd83e>] shmem_unused_huge_shrink+0x28e/0x1490 mm/shmem.c:427 CPU: 2 PID: 529 Comm: khugepaged Not tainted 4.10.0-rc5+ lkl#201 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 Call Trace: shmem_undo_range+0xb20/0x2710 mm/shmem.c:852 shmem_truncate_range+0x27/0xa0 mm/shmem.c:939 shmem_evict_inode+0x35f/0xca0 mm/shmem.c:1030 evict+0x46e/0x980 fs/inode.c:553 iput_final fs/inode.c:1515 [inline] iput+0x589/0xb20 fs/inode.c:1542 shmem_unused_huge_shrink+0xbad/0x1490 mm/shmem.c:446 shmem_unused_huge_scan+0x10c/0x170 mm/shmem.c:512 super_cache_scan+0x376/0x450 fs/super.c:106 do_shrink_slab mm/vmscan.c:378 [inline] shrink_slab.part.59+0x543/0xd30 mm/vmscan.c:481 shrink_slab mm/vmscan.c:2592 [inline] shrink_node+0x2c7/0x870 mm/vmscan.c:2592 shrink_zones mm/vmscan.c:2734 [inline] do_try_to_free_pages+0x369/0xc80 mm/vmscan.c:2776 try_to_free_pages+0x3c6/0x900 mm/vmscan.c:2982 __perform_reclaim mm/page_alloc.c:3301 [inline] __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim mm/page_alloc.c:3322 [inline] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xa24/0x1c30 mm/page_alloc.c:3683 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x544/0xae0 mm/page_alloc.c:3848 __alloc_pages include/linux/gfp.h:426 [inline] __alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:439 [inline] khugepaged_alloc_page+0xc2/0x1b0 mm/khugepaged.c:750 collapse_huge_page+0x182/0x1fe0 mm/khugepaged.c:955 khugepaged_scan_pmd+0xfdf/0x12a0 mm/khugepaged.c:1208 khugepaged_scan_mm_slot mm/khugepaged.c:1727 [inline] khugepaged_do_scan mm/khugepaged.c:1808 [inline] khugepaged+0xe9b/0x1590 mm/khugepaged.c:1853 kthread+0x326/0x3f0 kernel/kthread.c:227 ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:430 The iput() from atomic context was a bad idea: if after igrab() somebody else calls iput() and we left with the last inode reference, our iput() would lead to inode eviction and therefore sleeping. This patch should fix the situation. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170131093141.GA15899@node.shutemov.name Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
From what I can see only a very limited number of system calls is actually intercepted by lkl-hijack.
I am wondering what speaks against widening the number of system calls supported. What would be the pros and cons? Would it interfere with some use cases where people still need programs to access some parts of their host system?EDIT: I see that rump-hijack has more flexibility regarding which syscalls are intercepted. I edited the issue title to reflect that we should have this flexibility as well :-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: