All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
To: broonie@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:02:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220617180219.20352-5-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220617180219.20352-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

There are some kernel features and conditions that make a stack trace
unreliable. Callers may require the unwinder to detect these cases.
E.g., livepatch.

Introduce a new function called unwind_check_reliability() that will
detect these cases and set a flag in the stack frame. Call
unwind_check_reliability() for every frame in unwind().

Introduce the first reliability check in unwind_check_reliability() - If
a return PC is not a valid kernel text address, consider the stack
trace unreliable. It could be some generated code. Other reliability checks
will be added in the future.

Let unwind() return a boolean to indicate if the stack trace is
reliable.

Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index c749129aba5a..5ef2ce217324 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@
  * @final_fp:	 Pointer to the final frame.
  *
  * @failed:      Unwind failed.
+ *
+ * @reliable:    Stack trace is reliable.
  */
 struct unwind_state {
 	unsigned long fp;
@@ -57,6 +59,7 @@ struct unwind_state {
 	struct task_struct *task;
 	unsigned long final_fp;
 	bool failed;
+	bool reliable;
 };
 
 static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
@@ -80,6 +83,7 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
 	state->prev_fp = 0;
 	state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
 	state->failed = false;
+	state->reliable = true;
 
 	/* Stack trace terminates here. */
 	state->final_fp = (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe;
@@ -242,11 +246,34 @@ static void notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
 
-static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
+/*
+ * Check the stack frame for conditions that make further unwinding unreliable.
+ */
+static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
+{
+	if (state->fp == state->final_fp) {
+		/* Final frame; no more unwind, no need to check reliability */
+		return;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * If the PC is not a known kernel text address, then we cannot
+	 * be sure that a subsequent unwind will be reliable, as we
+	 * don't know that the code follows our unwind requirements.
+	 */
+	if (!__kernel_text_address(state->pc))
+		state->reliable = false;
+}
+
+static bool notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
 			   stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
 {
-	while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
+	unwind_check_reliability(state);
+	while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie)) {
 		unwind_next(state);
+		unwind_check_reliability(state);
+	}
+	return !state->failed && state->reliable;
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
 
-- 
2.25.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
To: broonie@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:02:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220617180219.20352-5-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220617180219.20352-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

There are some kernel features and conditions that make a stack trace
unreliable. Callers may require the unwinder to detect these cases.
E.g., livepatch.

Introduce a new function called unwind_check_reliability() that will
detect these cases and set a flag in the stack frame. Call
unwind_check_reliability() for every frame in unwind().

Introduce the first reliability check in unwind_check_reliability() - If
a return PC is not a valid kernel text address, consider the stack
trace unreliable. It could be some generated code. Other reliability checks
will be added in the future.

Let unwind() return a boolean to indicate if the stack trace is
reliable.

Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index c749129aba5a..5ef2ce217324 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@
  * @final_fp:	 Pointer to the final frame.
  *
  * @failed:      Unwind failed.
+ *
+ * @reliable:    Stack trace is reliable.
  */
 struct unwind_state {
 	unsigned long fp;
@@ -57,6 +59,7 @@ struct unwind_state {
 	struct task_struct *task;
 	unsigned long final_fp;
 	bool failed;
+	bool reliable;
 };
 
 static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
@@ -80,6 +83,7 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
 	state->prev_fp = 0;
 	state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
 	state->failed = false;
+	state->reliable = true;
 
 	/* Stack trace terminates here. */
 	state->final_fp = (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe;
@@ -242,11 +246,34 @@ static void notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
 
-static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
+/*
+ * Check the stack frame for conditions that make further unwinding unreliable.
+ */
+static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
+{
+	if (state->fp == state->final_fp) {
+		/* Final frame; no more unwind, no need to check reliability */
+		return;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * If the PC is not a known kernel text address, then we cannot
+	 * be sure that a subsequent unwind will be reliable, as we
+	 * don't know that the code follows our unwind requirements.
+	 */
+	if (!__kernel_text_address(state->pc))
+		state->reliable = false;
+}
+
+static bool notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
 			   stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
 {
-	while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
+	unwind_check_reliability(state);
+	while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie)) {
 		unwind_next(state);
+		unwind_check_reliability(state);
+	}
+	return !state->failed && state->reliable;
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
 
-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-06-17 18:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <ff68fb850d42e1adaa6a0a6c9c258acabb898b24>
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 1/6] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 2/6] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 3/6] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` madvenka [this message]
2022-06-17 18:02     ` [RFC PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 5/6] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 6/6] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 20:50   ` [RFC PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 20:50     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 13:00   ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27 13:00     ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27 17:06     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 17:06       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH " madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07   ` madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 1/6] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  7:39     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  7:39       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 2/6] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  7:39     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  7:39       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 3/6] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:21     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:21       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  4:51       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:51         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:32     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:32       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  5:01       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  5:01         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 5/6] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:46     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:46       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  5:06       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  5:06         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 6/6] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:57     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:57       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  5:53       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  5:53         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-23 17:32   ` [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Will Deacon
2022-06-23 17:32     ` Will Deacon
2022-06-24  5:19     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24  5:19       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24  5:27       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24  5:27         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-26  9:18       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  9:18         ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  4:33         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:33           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 16:32           ` Kalesh Singh
2022-06-27 16:32             ` Kalesh Singh
2022-06-27 17:04             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 17:04               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:48         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:48           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  9:42           ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27  9:42             ` Will Deacon
2022-06-24 11:42     ` Mark Brown
2022-06-24 11:42       ` Mark Brown
2022-06-24 22:15       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24 22:15         ` 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=20220617180219.20352-5-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
    --cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.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: link
Be 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.