From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=q2Dt=QN=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,
	SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAB2C282CB
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 02:49:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C4C02184E
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 02:49:58 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="jeJm9NoH"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7C4C02184E
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43vQsH5GPnzDqNk
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 13:49:55 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com
 (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::943; helo=mail-ua1-x943.google.com;
 envelope-from=bsingharora@gmail.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key;
 unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="jeJm9NoH"; 
 dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-ua1-x943.google.com (mail-ua1-x943.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::943])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43vQqb49HFzDqMP
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 13:48:27 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x943.google.com with SMTP id c24so1833292uak.1
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 18:48:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=CNh6Bl8AR7J3+UPwhO4RSKKUKqjcpYNh9UtYG3kx9hE=;
 b=jeJm9NoHni3PV5NeJfh/6GrLB8tUuC9lFAK0RdgYnBL8c+FBs0SItZA/MTZKnoz/n4
 lJOvcWSq2wYhLq1ebO4OgGiyLMAlkgRjO/Wl5Q8chnE4azwC/bN0iBi+ieaHeqE3dxOX
 JZRE2Lh34M2X0ap4t4D2oSyk58VR0nISL4RAPyhTTXKB81sd5uldmHrhF7FkAMAZ+fwo
 EcG4wYKcwGL0RLMmpBRYdNTuhWZCFlHGl9zgA4Lh++EjYzOAdWtpOjrWUwk+Kl5YXJ4Z
 S90p2/1GgRT+fYwIxP8yY/5FqKz8rJGHBlvZgMZsTIUJ0ECHY16G9c1y8UK/XT/O6rtQ
 3VSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=CNh6Bl8AR7J3+UPwhO4RSKKUKqjcpYNh9UtYG3kx9hE=;
 b=AkoxHJQFDY7D+TjlTolRz3HKtlB99dpcZ3MJOS+LWWwBdSfLb8mZSc6M4YMeJcbDjr
 BOpsc6NNxh/C/sdxD2ThJSjfxseMh2vs2V4eNHaLO3FFhQkn4tz2zMwnBSijWPP9qvjc
 2ujvbGr4xIK6iB+JH2Rq/rveu1KjJPftJs3NN9uD2g7eYRP3JqkdcY9mEGQhpNEuQW2F
 PL06/MqKSBeKjglSgzjlwHpIdsvuWJ5c9y/2qE78sz8hubEhHKnCq8L+sDL9NAzJb1V2
 LzAmQVY/Xd7pZig3b+lCQMxOeglg/WswjAeSP1W5t91wMp796VKWJ+/YuATyLadc2Svv
 1i1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua5rSMzWl3z0q9LM3ffj2CLY37ZGQtjrTS7548/WXWVimE6OEpi
 3hkb6y7TVdAGoHJOFOqrPWH7fTTz6kmP/ySY67c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZypVdYieDHg2oEZPzYZOXlTsuVrqYZIDGfHV32DtZ/KlRx1JxS4QrraqbwOHNYLzwBxxckU6fPAIP/QRU+wH4=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2981:: with SMTP id u1mr3235931uap.96.1549421304595;
 Tue, 05 Feb 2019 18:48:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190122155724.27557-1-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <20190122155724.27557-2-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> <20190202011455.GN26056@350D>
 <CAKTCnzmWCxPRSBdc8T_phtmoBftNZLV3BdFp3Dee5Lc8VGzFYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87bm3qmqak.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
In-Reply-To: <87bm3qmqak.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:48:11 +1100
Message-ID: <CAKTCnznr9MoL=eZsNWyGkKYdx7UbLQr86VL=xmC8h2ig8Sw+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/64s: Clear on-stack exception marker upon
 exception return
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>,
 Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
 live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
 "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC \(32-BIT AND 64-BIT\)"
 <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:24 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:14 PM Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:57:21AM -0500, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> > From: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
> >> >
> >> > The ppc64 specific implementation of the reliable stacktracer,
> >> > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(), bails out and reports an "unreliable
> >> > trace" whenever it finds an exception frame on the stack. Stack frames
> >> > are classified as exception frames if the STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER magic,
> >> > as written by exception prologues, is found at a particular location.
> >> >
> >> > However, as observed by Joe Lawrence, it is possible in practice that
> >> > non-exception stack frames can alias with prior exception frames and thus,
> >> > that the reliable stacktracer can find a stale STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER on
> >> > the stack. It in turn falsely reports an unreliable stacktrace and blocks
> >> > any live patching transition to finish. Said condition lasts until the
> >> > stack frame is overwritten/initialized by function call or other means.
> >> >
> >> > In principle, we could mitigate this by making the exception frame
> >> > classification condition in save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() stronger:
> >> > in addition to testing for STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER, we could also take into
> >> > account that for all exceptions executing on the kernel stack
> >> > - their stack frames's backlink pointers always match what is saved
> >> >   in their pt_regs instance's ->gpr[1] slot and that
> >> > - their exception frame size equals STACK_INT_FRAME_SIZE, a value
> >> >   uncommonly large for non-exception frames.
> >> >
> >> > However, while these are currently true, relying on them would make the
> >> > reliable stacktrace implementation more sensitive towards future changes in
> >> > the exception entry code. Note that false negatives, i.e. not detecting
> >> > exception frames, would silently break the live patching consistency model.
> >> >
> >> > Furthermore, certain other places (diagnostic stacktraces, perf, xmon)
> >> > rely on STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER as well.
> >> >
> >> > Make the exception exit code clear the on-stack STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER
> >> > for those exceptions running on the "normal" kernel stack and returning
> >> > to kernelspace: because the topmost frame is ignored by the reliable stack
> >> > tracer anyway, returns to userspace don't need to take care of clearing
> >> > the marker.
> >> >
> >> > Furthermore, as I don't have the ability to test this on Book 3E or
> >> > 32 bits, limit the change to Book 3S and 64 bits.
> >> >
> >> > Finally, make the HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Kconfig option depend on
> >> > PPC_BOOK3S_64 for documentation purposes. Before this patch, it depended
> >> > on PPC64 && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN and because CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN implies
> >> > PPC_BOOK3S_64, there's no functional change here.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: df78d3f61480 ("powerpc/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing for the consistency model")
> >> > Reported-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/powerpc/Kconfig           | 2 +-
> >> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 7 +++++++
> >> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> > index 2890d36eb531..73bf87b1d274 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ config PPC
> >> >       select HAVE_PERF_USER_STACK_DUMP
> >> >       select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE              if SMP
> >> >       select HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API
> >> > -     select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE         if PPC64 && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> >> > +     select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE         if PPC_BOOK3S_64 && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> >> >       select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
> >> >       select HAVE_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
> >> >       select HAVE_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
> >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> > index 435927f549c4..a2c168b395d2 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> > @@ -1002,6 +1002,13 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR)
> >> >       ld      r2,_NIP(r1)
> >> >       mtspr   SPRN_SRR0,r2
> >> >
> >> > +     /*
> >> > +      * Leaving a stale exception_marker on the stack can confuse
> >> > +      * the reliable stack unwinder later on. Clear it.
> >> > +      */
> >> > +     li      r2,0
> >> > +     std     r2,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD-16(r1)
> >> > +
> >>
> >> Could you please double check, r4 is already 0 at this point
> >> IIUC. So the change might be a simple
> >>
> >> std r4,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD-16(r1)
> >>
> >
> > r4 is not 0, sorry for the noise
>
>
 Isn't it?

It is, I seem to be reading the wrong bits and confused myself, had to
re-read mtmsrd to ensure it does not modify RS, just MSR. So I guess
we could reuse r4. Should I send a patch on top of this? I have
limited testing infrastructure at the moment, I could use qemu

Balbir Singh.