From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> Cc: broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE frame and mark a stack trace unreliable Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:30:53 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210323183053.GH98545@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bc450f09-1881-9a9c-bfbc-5bb31c01d8ce@linux.microsoft.com> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > On 3/23/21 12:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: [...] > I think that I did a bad job of explaining what I wanted to do. It is not > for any additional protection at all. > > So, let us say we create a field in the task structure: > > u64 unreliable_stack; > > Whenever an EL1 exception is entered or FTRACE is entered and pt_regs get > set up and pt_regs->stackframe gets chained, increment unreliable_stack. > On exiting the above, decrement unreliable_stack. > > In arch_stack_walk_reliable(), simply do this check upfront: > > if (task->unreliable_stack) > return -EINVAL; > > This way, the function does not even bother unwinding the stack to find > exception frames or checking for different return addresses or anything. > We also don't have to worry about code being reorganized, functions > being renamed, etc. It also may help in debugging to know if a task is > experiencing an exception and the level of nesting, etc. As in my other reply, since this is an optimization that is not necessary for functional correctness, I would prefer to avoid this for now. We can reconsider that in future if we encounter performance problems. Even with this there will be cases where we have to identify non-unwindable functions explicitly (e.g. the patchable-function-entry trampolines, where the real return address is in x9), and I'd prefer that we use one mechanism consistently. I suspect that in the future we'll need to unwind across exception boundaries using metadata, and we can treat the non-unwindable metadata in the same way. [...] > > 3. Figure out exception boundary handling. I'm currently working to > > simplify the entry assembly down to a uniform set of stubs, and I'd > > prefer to get that sorted before we teach the unwinder about > > exception boundaries, as it'll be significantly simpler to reason > > about and won't end up clashing with the rework. > > So, here is where I still have a question. Is it necessary for the unwinder > to know the exception boundaries? Is it not enough if it knows if there are > exceptions present? For instance, using something like num_special_frames > I suggested above? I agree that it would be legitimate to bail out early if we knew there was going to be an exception somewhere in the trace. Regardless, I think it's simpler overall to identify non-unwindability during the trace, and doing that during the trace aligns more closely with the structure that we'll need to permit unwinding across these boundaries in future, so I'd prefer we do that rather than trying to optimize for early returns today. Thanks, Mark.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> Cc: broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE frame and mark a stack trace unreliable Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:30:53 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210323183053.GH98545@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bc450f09-1881-9a9c-bfbc-5bb31c01d8ce@linux.microsoft.com> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > On 3/23/21 12:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: [...] > I think that I did a bad job of explaining what I wanted to do. It is not > for any additional protection at all. > > So, let us say we create a field in the task structure: > > u64 unreliable_stack; > > Whenever an EL1 exception is entered or FTRACE is entered and pt_regs get > set up and pt_regs->stackframe gets chained, increment unreliable_stack. > On exiting the above, decrement unreliable_stack. > > In arch_stack_walk_reliable(), simply do this check upfront: > > if (task->unreliable_stack) > return -EINVAL; > > This way, the function does not even bother unwinding the stack to find > exception frames or checking for different return addresses or anything. > We also don't have to worry about code being reorganized, functions > being renamed, etc. It also may help in debugging to know if a task is > experiencing an exception and the level of nesting, etc. As in my other reply, since this is an optimization that is not necessary for functional correctness, I would prefer to avoid this for now. We can reconsider that in future if we encounter performance problems. Even with this there will be cases where we have to identify non-unwindable functions explicitly (e.g. the patchable-function-entry trampolines, where the real return address is in x9), and I'd prefer that we use one mechanism consistently. I suspect that in the future we'll need to unwind across exception boundaries using metadata, and we can treat the non-unwindable metadata in the same way. [...] > > 3. Figure out exception boundary handling. I'm currently working to > > simplify the entry assembly down to a uniform set of stubs, and I'd > > prefer to get that sorted before we teach the unwinder about > > exception boundaries, as it'll be significantly simpler to reason > > about and won't end up clashing with the rework. > > So, here is where I still have a question. Is it necessary for the unwinder > to know the exception boundaries? Is it not enough if it knows if there are > exceptions present? For instance, using something like num_special_frames > I suggested above? I agree that it would be legitimate to bail out early if we knew there was going to be an exception somewhere in the trace. Regardless, I think it's simpler overall to identify non-unwindability during the trace, and doing that during the trace aligns more closely with the structure that we'll need to permit unwinding across these boundaries in future, so I'd prefer we do that rather than trying to optimize for early returns today. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-23 18:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <5997dfe8d261a3a543667b83c902883c1e4bd270> 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] arm64: Implement stack trace termination record madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-18 15:09 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-18 15:09 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-18 20:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-18 20:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 12:30 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-19 12:30 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-19 14:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 14:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 18:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 18:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 22:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 22:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 10:24 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 10:24 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 12:39 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 12:39 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/8] arm64: Implement frame types madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-18 17:40 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-18 17:40 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-18 22:22 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-18 22:22 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 13:22 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-19 13:22 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-19 14:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 14:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 15:02 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 15:02 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 16:20 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-19 16:20 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-19 16:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-19 16:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 10:34 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 10:34 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] arm64: Terminate the stack trace at TASK_FRAME and EL0_FRAME madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-18 18:26 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-18 18:26 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-18 20:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-18 20:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 10:36 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 10:36 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 12:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 12:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] arm64: Detect an EL1 exception frame and mark a stack trace unreliable madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-23 10:42 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 10:42 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 12:46 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 12:46 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 13:04 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 13:04 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 13:31 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 13:31 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 14:33 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 14:33 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 15:22 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 15:22 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE " madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-23 10:51 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 10:51 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 12:56 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 12:56 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 13:36 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 13:36 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 13:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 13:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 14:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 14:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 14:57 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 14:57 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 15:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 15:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 16:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 16:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 17:02 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 17:02 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 17:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 17:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 17:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 17:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 18:27 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-23 18:27 ` Mark Brown 2021-03-23 20:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 20:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 18:30 ` Mark Rutland [this message] 2021-03-23 18:30 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 20:24 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 20:24 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 21:04 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 21:04 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 16:48 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 16:48 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 16:53 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 16:53 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-23 17:09 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-23 17:09 ` Mark Rutland 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] arm64: Check the return PC of every stack frame madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/8] arm64: Detect kretprobed functions in stack trace madvenka 2021-03-15 16:57 ` madvenka 2021-03-15 16:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 8/8] arm64: Implement arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka 2021-03-15 16:58 ` madvenka 2021-03-15 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace Madhavan T. Venkataraman 2021-03-15 19:01 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20210323183053.GH98545@C02TD0UTHF1T.local \ --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \ --cc=jthierry@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.