* [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
Split unwind_init()
===================
Unwind initialization has 3 cases. Accordingly, define 3 separate init
functions as follows:
- unwind_init_from_regs()
- unwind_init_from_current()
- unwind_init_from_task()
This makes it easier to understand and add specialized code to each case
in the future.
Copy task argument
==================
Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
Redefine the unwinder loop
==========================
Redefine the unwinder loop and make it simple and somewhat similar to other
architectures. Define the following:
while (unwind_continue(&state, consume_entry, cookie))
unwind_next(&state);
unwind_continue()
This new function implements checks to determine whether the
unwind should continue or terminate.
Reliability checks
==================
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 boolean "reliable" in the stackframe. Call
unwind_check_reliability() for every frame.
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.
Make unwind() return a boolean to indicate reliability of the stack trace.
SYM_CODE check
==============
This is the second reliability check implemented.
SYM_CODE functions do not follow normal calling conventions. They cannot
be unwound reliably using the frame pointer. Collect the address ranges
of these functions in a special section called "sym_code_functions".
In unwind_check_reliability(), check the return PC against these ranges. If
a match is found, then mark the stack trace unreliable.
Last stack frame
================
If a SYM_CODE function occurs in the very last frame in the stack trace,
then the stack trace is not considered unreliable. This is because there
is no more unwinding to do. Examples:
- EL0 exception stack traces end in the top level EL0 exception
handlers.
- All kernel thread stack traces end in ret_from_fork().
arch_stack_walk_reliable()
==========================
Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
arch_stack_walk() except that it returns an error if the stack trace is
found to be unreliable.
Until all of the reliability checks are in place in
unwind_check_reliability(), arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used by
livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
========================
Select this config for arm64. However, make it conditional on
STACK_VALIDATION. When objtool is enhanced to implement stack
validation for arm64, STACK_VALIDATION will be defined.
---
Changelog:
v14:
- Some of the patches from v13 have been added to the branch:
arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux.
I have rebased the rest of the patches on top of that.
From Mark Rutland, Mark Brown:
- Add requirements for the three helper functions that init a stack
trace.
From Mark Rutland:
- Change the comment for the task field in struct stackframe.
- Hard code the task to current in unwind_init_from_regs(). Add a
sanity check task == current.
- Rename unwind_init_from_current() to unwind_init_from_caller().
- Remove task argument from unwind_init_from_caller().
From Mark Brown:
- Reviewed-By: for:
[PATCH v13 05/11] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
v13:
From Mark Brown:
- Reviewed-by for the following:
[PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
[PATCH v11 05/10] arm64: Copy unwind arguments to unwind_state
[PATCH v11 07/10] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks
in the unwinder
[PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
return PC against list
From Mark Rutland:
- Reviewed-by for the following:
[PATCH v12 01/10] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame()
[PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
[PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
- For each of the 3 cases of unwind initialization, have a separate
init function. Call the common init from each of these init
functions rather than call it separately.
- Only copy the task argument to arch_stack_walk() into
unwind state. Pass the rest of the arguments as arguments to
unwind functions.
v12:
From Mark Brown:
- Reviewed-by for the following:
[PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within
walk_stackframe()
[PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
[PATCH v11 3/5] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to
other architectures
[PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
return PC against list
- Add an extra patch at the end to select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
just as a place holder for the review. I have added it and made
it conditional on STACK_VALIDATION which has not yet been
implemented.
- Mark had a concern about the code for the check for the final
frame being repeated in two places. I have now added a new
field called "final_fp" in struct stackframe which I compute
once in stacktrace initialization. I have added an explicit
comment that the stacktrace must terminate at the final_fp.
- Place the implementation of arch_stack_walk_reliable() in a
separate patch after all the reliability checks have been
implemented.
From Mark Rutland:
- Place the removal of the NULL task check in unwind_frame() in
a separate patch.
- Add a task field to struct stackframe so the task pointer can be
passed around via the frame instead of as a separate argument. I have
taken this a step further by copying all of the arguments to
arch_stack_walk() into struct stackframe so that only that
struct needs to be passed to unwind functions.
- Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_init() instead of unwind_start().
- Acked-by for the following:
[PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
- Rename "struct stackframe" to "struct unwind_state".
- Define separate inline functions for initializing the starting
FP and PC from regs, or caller, or blocked task. Don't merge
unwind_init() into unwind().
v11:
From Mark Rutland:
- Peter Zijlstra has submitted patches that make ARCH_STACKWALK
independent of STACKTRACE. Mark Rutland extracted some of the
patches from my v10 series and added his own patches and comments,
rebased it on top of Peter's changes and submitted the series.
So, I have rebased the rest of the patches from v10 on top of
Mark Rutland's changes.
- Split the renaming of the unwinder functions and annotating them
with notrace and NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(). Also, there is currently no
need to annotate unwind_start() as its caller is already annotated
properly. So, I am removing the annotation patch from the series.
This can be done separately later if deemed necessary. Similarly,
I have removed the annotations from unwind_check_reliability() and
unwind_continue().
From Nobuta Keiya:
- unwind_start() should check for final frame and not mark the
final frame unreliable.
v9, v10:
- v9 had a threading problem. So, I resent it as v10.
From me:
- Removed the word "RFC" from the subject line as I believe this
is mature enough to be a regular patch.
From Mark Brown, Mark Rutland:
- Split the patches into smaller, self-contained ones.
- Always enable STACKTRACE so that arch_stack_walk() is always
defined.
From Mark Rutland:
- Update callchain_trace() take the return value of
perf_callchain_store() into acount.
- Restore get_wchan() behavior to the original code.
- Simplify an if statement in dump_backtrace().
From Mark Brown:
- Do not abort the stack trace on the first unreliable frame.
v8:
- Synced to v5.14-rc5.
From Mark Rutland:
- Make the unwinder loop similar to other architectures.
- Keep details to within the unwinder functions and return a simple
boolean to the caller.
- Convert some of the current code that contains unwinder logic to
simply use arch_stack_walk(). I have converted all of them.
- Do not copy sym_code_functions[]. Just place it in rodata for now.
- Have the main loop check for termination conditions rather than
having unwind_frame() check for them. In other words, let
unwind_frame() assume that the fp is valid.
- Replace the big comment for SYM_CODE functions with a shorter
comment.
/*
* As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling
* conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function
* cannot be unwound reliably.
*
* Note that this includes:
*
* - Exception handlers and entry assembly
* - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
* - Hypervisor-related assembly
* - Hibernation-related assembly
* - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
* - Kernel relocation assembly
*/
v7:
The Mailer screwed up the threading on this. So, I have resent this
same series as version 8 with proper threading to avoid confusion.
v6:
From Mark Rutland:
- The per-frame reliability concept and flag are acceptable. But more
work is needed to make the per-frame checks more accurate and more
complete. E.g., some code reorg is being worked on that will help.
I have now removed the frame->reliable flag and deleted the whole
concept of per-frame status. This is orthogonal to this patch series.
Instead, I have improved the unwinder to return proper return codes
so a caller can take appropriate action without needing per-frame
status.
- Remove the mention of PLTs and update the comment.
I have replaced the comment above the call to __kernel_text_address()
with the comment suggested by Mark Rutland.
Other comments:
- Other comments on the per-frame stuff are not relevant because
that approach is not there anymore.
v5:
From Keiya Nobuta:
- The term blacklist(ed) is not to be used anymore. I have changed it
to unreliable. So, the function unwinder_blacklisted() has been
changed to unwinder_is_unreliable().
From Mark Brown:
- Add a comment for the "reliable" flag in struct stackframe. The
reliability attribute is not complete until all the checks are
in place. Added a comment above struct stackframe.
- Include some of the comments in the cover letter in the actual
code so that we can compare it with the reliable stack trace
requirements document for completeness. I have added a comment:
- above unwinder_is_unreliable() that lists the requirements
that are addressed by the function.
- above the __kernel_text_address() call about all the cases
the call covers.
v4:
From Mark Brown:
- I was checking the return PC with __kernel_text_address() before
the Function Graph trace handling. Mark Brown felt that all the
reliability checks should be performed on the original return PC
once that is obtained. So, I have moved all the reliability checks
to after the Function Graph Trace handling code in the unwinder.
Basically, the unwinder should perform PC translations first (for
rhe return trampoline for Function Graph Tracing, Kretprobes, etc).
Then, the reliability checks should be applied to the resulting
PC.
- Mark said to improve the naming of the new functions so they don't
collide with existing ones. I have used a prefix "unwinder_" for
all the new functions.
From Josh Poimboeuf:
- In the error scenarios in the unwinder, the reliable flag in the
stack frame should be set. Implemented this.
- Some of the other comments are not relevant to the new code as
I have taken a different approach in the new code. That is why
I have not made those changes. E.g., Ard wanted me to add the
"const" keyword to the global section array. That array does not
exist in v4. Similarly, Mark Brown said to use ARRAY_SIZE() for
the same array in a for loop.
Other changes:
- Add a new definition for SYM_CODE_END() that adds the address
range of the function to a special section called
"sym_code_functions".
- Include the new section under initdata in vmlinux.lds.S.
- Define an early_initcall() to copy the contents of the
"sym_code_functions" section to an array by the same name.
- Define a function unwinder_blacklisted() that compares a return
PC against sym_code_sections[]. If there is a match, mark the
stack trace unreliable. Call this from unwind_frame().
v3:
- Implemented a sym_code_ranges[] array to contains sections bounds
for text sections that contain SYM_CODE_*() functions. The unwinder
checks each return PC against the sections. If it falls in any of
the sections, the stack trace is marked unreliable.
- Moved SYM_CODE functions from .text and .init.text into a new
text section called ".code.text". Added this section to
vmlinux.lds.S and sym_code_ranges[].
- Fixed the logic in the unwinder that handles Function Graph
Tracer return trampoline.
- Removed all the previous code that handles:
- ftrace entry code for traced function
- special_functions[] array that lists individual functions
- kretprobe_trampoline() special case
v2
- Removed the terminating entry { 0, 0 } in special_functions[]
and replaced it with the idiom { /* sentinel */ }.
- Change the ftrace trampoline entry ftrace_graph_call in
special_functions[] to ftrace_call + 4 and added explanatory
comments.
- Unnested #ifdefs in special_functions[] for FTRACE.
v1
- Define a bool field in struct stackframe. This will indicate if
a stack trace is reliable.
- Implement a special_functions[] array that will be populated
with special functions in which the stack trace is considered
unreliable.
- Using kallsyms_lookup(), get the address ranges for the special
functions and record them.
- Implement an is_reliable_function(pc). This function will check
if a given return PC falls in any of the special functions. If
it does, the stack trace is unreliable.
- Implement check_reliability() function that will check if a
stack frame is reliable. Call is_reliable_function() from
check_reliability().
- Before a return PC is checked against special_funtions[], it
must be validates as a proper kernel text address. Call
__kernel_text_address() from check_reliability().
- Finally, call check_reliability() from unwind_frame() for
each stack frame.
- Add EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
el1_sync();
el1_irq();
el1_error();
el1_sync_invalid();
el1_irq_invalid();
el1_fiq_invalid();
el1_error_invalid();
- The above functions are currently defined as LOCAL symbols.
Make them global so that they can be referenced from the
unwinder code.
- Add FTRACE trampolines to special_functions[]:
ftrace_graph_call()
ftrace_graph_caller()
return_to_handler()
- Add the kretprobe trampoline to special functions[]:
kretprobe_trampoline()
Previous versions and discussion
================================
v13: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
v12: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220103165212.9303-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#m21e86eecb9b8f0831196568f0bf62c3b56f65bf0
v11: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
v10: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/4b3d5552-590c-e6a0-866b-9bc51da7bebf@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
v9: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v10 with proper threading.
v8: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210812190603.25326-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
v7: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v8 with proper threading.
v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210630223356.58714-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210526214917.20099-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210405204313.21346-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210330190955.13707-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
Madhavan T. Venkataraman (7):
arm64: Split unwind_init()
arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against
list
arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 ++
arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 266 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++
5 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
base-commit: 5ec58b607fab3cb6f6519103f663731b7bb749f3
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 1/7] arm64: Split unwind_init()
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
unwind_init() is currently a single function that initializes all of the
unwind state. Split it into the following functions and call them
appropriately:
- unwind_init_from_regs() - initialize from regs passed by caller.
- unwind_init_from_caller() - initialize for the current task
from the caller of arch_stack_walk().
- unwind_init_from_task() - initialize from the saved state of a
task other than the current task. In this case, the other
task must not be running.
This is done for two reasons:
- the different ways of initializing are clear
- specialized code can be added to each initializer in the future.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 0467cb79f080..e44f93ff25f0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -50,11 +50,8 @@ struct unwind_state {
#endif
};
-static notrace void unwind_init(struct unwind_state *state, unsigned long fp,
- unsigned long pc)
+static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
{
- state->fp = fp;
- state->pc = pc;
#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
state->kr_cur = NULL;
#endif
@@ -72,7 +69,57 @@ static notrace void unwind_init(struct unwind_state *state, unsigned long fp,
state->prev_fp = 0;
state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
}
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_init);
+
+/*
+ * Start an unwind from a pt_regs.
+ *
+ * The unwind will begin at the PC within the regs.
+ *
+ * The regs must be on a stack currently owned by the calling task.
+ */
+static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ unwind_init_common(state);
+
+ state->fp = regs->regs[29];
+ state->pc = regs->pc;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Start an unwind from a caller.
+ *
+ * The unwind will begin at the caller of whichever function this is inlined
+ * into.
+ *
+ * The function which invokes this must be noinline.
+ */
+static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct unwind_state *state)
+{
+ unwind_init_common(state);
+
+ state->fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
+ state->pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Start an unwind from a blocked task.
+ *
+ * The unwind will begin at the blocked tasks saved PC (i.e. the caller of
+ * cpu_switch_to()).
+ *
+ * The caller should ensure the task is blocked in cpu_switch_to() for the
+ * duration of the unwind, or the unwind will be bogus. It is never valid to
+ * call this for the current task.
+ */
+static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct task_struct *task)
+{
+ unwind_init_common(state);
+
+ state->fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
+ state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
+}
/*
* Unwind from one frame record (A) to the next frame record (B).
@@ -213,14 +260,11 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
struct unwind_state state;
if (regs)
- unwind_init(&state, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
+ unwind_init_from_regs(&state, regs);
else if (task == current)
- unwind_init(&state,
- (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
- (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
+ unwind_init_from_caller(&state);
else
- unwind_init(&state, thread_saved_fp(task),
- thread_saved_pc(task));
+ unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
unwind(task, &state, consume_entry, cookie);
}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 1/7] arm64: Split unwind_init()
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
unwind_init() is currently a single function that initializes all of the
unwind state. Split it into the following functions and call them
appropriately:
- unwind_init_from_regs() - initialize from regs passed by caller.
- unwind_init_from_caller() - initialize for the current task
from the caller of arch_stack_walk().
- unwind_init_from_task() - initialize from the saved state of a
task other than the current task. In this case, the other
task must not be running.
This is done for two reasons:
- the different ways of initializing are clear
- specialized code can be added to each initializer in the future.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 0467cb79f080..e44f93ff25f0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -50,11 +50,8 @@ struct unwind_state {
#endif
};
-static notrace void unwind_init(struct unwind_state *state, unsigned long fp,
- unsigned long pc)
+static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
{
- state->fp = fp;
- state->pc = pc;
#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
state->kr_cur = NULL;
#endif
@@ -72,7 +69,57 @@ static notrace void unwind_init(struct unwind_state *state, unsigned long fp,
state->prev_fp = 0;
state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
}
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_init);
+
+/*
+ * Start an unwind from a pt_regs.
+ *
+ * The unwind will begin at the PC within the regs.
+ *
+ * The regs must be on a stack currently owned by the calling task.
+ */
+static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ unwind_init_common(state);
+
+ state->fp = regs->regs[29];
+ state->pc = regs->pc;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Start an unwind from a caller.
+ *
+ * The unwind will begin at the caller of whichever function this is inlined
+ * into.
+ *
+ * The function which invokes this must be noinline.
+ */
+static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct unwind_state *state)
+{
+ unwind_init_common(state);
+
+ state->fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
+ state->pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Start an unwind from a blocked task.
+ *
+ * The unwind will begin at the blocked tasks saved PC (i.e. the caller of
+ * cpu_switch_to()).
+ *
+ * The caller should ensure the task is blocked in cpu_switch_to() for the
+ * duration of the unwind, or the unwind will be bogus. It is never valid to
+ * call this for the current task.
+ */
+static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct task_struct *task)
+{
+ unwind_init_common(state);
+
+ state->fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
+ state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
+}
/*
* Unwind from one frame record (A) to the next frame record (B).
@@ -213,14 +260,11 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
struct unwind_state state;
if (regs)
- unwind_init(&state, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
+ unwind_init_from_regs(&state, regs);
else if (task == current)
- unwind_init(&state,
- (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
- (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
+ unwind_init_from_caller(&state);
else
- unwind_init(&state, thread_saved_fp(task),
- thread_saved_pc(task));
+ unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
unwind(task, &state, consume_entry, cookie);
}
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v14 1/7] arm64: Split unwind_init()
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-05-10 18:15 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-05-10 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: madvenka
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 361 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:22AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> unwind_init() is currently a single function that initializes all of the
> unwind state. Split it into the following functions and call them
> appropriately:
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 1/7] arm64: Split unwind_init()
@ 2022-05-10 18:15 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-05-10 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: madvenka
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 361 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:22AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> unwind_init() is currently a single function that initializes all of the
> unwind state. Split it into the following functions and call them
> appropriately:
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 1/7] arm64: Split unwind_init()
2022-05-10 18:15 ` Mark Brown
@ 2022-05-18 5:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-05-18 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
Thanks!
On 5/10/22 13:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:22AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> unwind_init() is currently a single function that initializes all of the
>> unwind state. Split it into the following functions and call them
>> appropriately:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 1/7] arm64: Split unwind_init()
@ 2022-05-18 5:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-05-18 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
Thanks!
On 5/10/22 13:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:22AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> unwind_init() is currently a single function that initializes all of the
>> unwind state. Split it into the following functions and call them
>> appropriately:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 2/7] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index e44f93ff25f0..8e43444d50e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
* @kr_cur: When KRETPROBES is selected, holds the kretprobe instance
* associated with the most recently encountered replacement lr
* value.
+ *
+ * @task: The task being unwound.
*/
struct unwind_state {
unsigned long fp;
@@ -48,10 +50,13 @@ struct unwind_state {
#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
struct llist_node *kr_cur;
#endif
+ struct task_struct *task;
};
-static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
+static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct task_struct *task)
{
+ state->task = task;
#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
state->kr_cur = NULL;
#endif
@@ -80,7 +85,7 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
- unwind_init_common(state);
+ unwind_init_common(state, current);
state->fp = regs->regs[29];
state->pc = regs->pc;
@@ -96,7 +101,7 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
*/
static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct unwind_state *state)
{
- unwind_init_common(state);
+ unwind_init_common(state, current);
state->fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
state->pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
@@ -115,7 +120,7 @@ static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct unwind_state *state)
static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
struct task_struct *task)
{
- unwind_init_common(state);
+ unwind_init_common(state, task);
state->fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
@@ -128,9 +133,9 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
* records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
* and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
*/
-static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
- struct unwind_state *state)
+static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
{
+ struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
unsigned long fp = state->fp;
struct stack_info info;
@@ -204,8 +209,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
-static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
- struct unwind_state *state,
+static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
{
while (1) {
@@ -213,7 +217,7 @@ static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc))
break;
- ret = unwind_next(tsk, state);
+ ret = unwind_next(state);
if (ret < 0)
break;
}
@@ -259,12 +263,15 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
{
struct unwind_state state;
- if (regs)
+ if (regs) {
+ if (task != current)
+ return;
unwind_init_from_regs(&state, regs);
- else if (task == current)
+ } else if (task == current) {
unwind_init_from_caller(&state);
- else
+ } else {
unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
+ }
- unwind(task, &state, consume_entry, cookie);
+ unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 2/7] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index e44f93ff25f0..8e43444d50e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
* @kr_cur: When KRETPROBES is selected, holds the kretprobe instance
* associated with the most recently encountered replacement lr
* value.
+ *
+ * @task: The task being unwound.
*/
struct unwind_state {
unsigned long fp;
@@ -48,10 +50,13 @@ struct unwind_state {
#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
struct llist_node *kr_cur;
#endif
+ struct task_struct *task;
};
-static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
+static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct task_struct *task)
{
+ state->task = task;
#ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
state->kr_cur = NULL;
#endif
@@ -80,7 +85,7 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
- unwind_init_common(state);
+ unwind_init_common(state, current);
state->fp = regs->regs[29];
state->pc = regs->pc;
@@ -96,7 +101,7 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
*/
static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct unwind_state *state)
{
- unwind_init_common(state);
+ unwind_init_common(state, current);
state->fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
state->pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
@@ -115,7 +120,7 @@ static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct unwind_state *state)
static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
struct task_struct *task)
{
- unwind_init_common(state);
+ unwind_init_common(state, task);
state->fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
@@ -128,9 +133,9 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
* records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
* and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
*/
-static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
- struct unwind_state *state)
+static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
{
+ struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
unsigned long fp = state->fp;
struct stack_info info;
@@ -204,8 +209,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
-static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
- struct unwind_state *state,
+static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
{
while (1) {
@@ -213,7 +217,7 @@ static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc))
break;
- ret = unwind_next(tsk, state);
+ ret = unwind_next(state);
if (ret < 0)
break;
}
@@ -259,12 +263,15 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
{
struct unwind_state state;
- if (regs)
+ if (regs) {
+ if (task != current)
+ return;
unwind_init_from_regs(&state, regs);
- else if (task == current)
+ } else if (task == current) {
unwind_init_from_caller(&state);
- else
+ } else {
unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
+ }
- unwind(task, &state, consume_entry, cookie);
+ unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
}
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-05-10 18:18 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-05-10 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: madvenka
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:23AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
@ 2022-05-10 18:18 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-05-10 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: madvenka
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:23AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
2022-05-10 18:18 ` Mark Brown
@ 2022-05-18 5:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-05-18 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
Thanks!
On 5/10/22 13:18, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:23AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
>> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
>> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
@ 2022-05-18 5:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-05-18 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
Thanks!
On 5/10/22 13:18, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:23AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
>> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
>> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 3/7] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Change the loop in unwind()
===========================
Change the unwind loop in unwind() to:
while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
unwind_next(state);
This is easy to understand and maintain.
New function unwind_continue()
==============================
Define a new function unwind_continue() that is used in the unwind loop
to check for conditions that terminate a stack trace.
The conditions checked are:
- If the bottom of the stack (final frame) has been reached,
terminate.
- If the consume_entry() function returns false, the caller of
unwind has asked to terminate the stack trace. So, terminate.
- If unwind_next() failed for some reason (like stack corruption),
terminate.
Do not return an error value from unwind_next()
===============================================
We want to check for terminating conditions only in unwind_continue() from
the unwinder loop. So, do not return an error value from unwind_next().
Simply set a flag in unwind_state and check the flag in unwind_continue().
Final FP
========
Introduce a new field "final_fp" in "struct unwind_state". Initialize this
to the final frame of the stack trace:
task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe
This is where the stacktrace must terminate if it is successful. Add an
explicit comment to that effect.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 8e43444d50e2..c749129aba5a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -40,6 +40,10 @@
* value.
*
* @task: The task being unwound.
+ *
+ * @final_fp: Pointer to the final frame.
+ *
+ * @failed: Unwind failed.
*/
struct unwind_state {
unsigned long fp;
@@ -51,6 +55,8 @@ struct unwind_state {
struct llist_node *kr_cur;
#endif
struct task_struct *task;
+ unsigned long final_fp;
+ bool failed;
};
static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
@@ -73,6 +79,10 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
bitmap_zero(state->stacks_done, __NR_STACK_TYPES);
state->prev_fp = 0;
state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
+ state->failed = false;
+
+ /* Stack trace terminates here. */
+ state->final_fp = (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe;
}
/*
@@ -126,6 +136,25 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
}
+static bool notrace unwind_continue(struct unwind_state *state,
+ stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
+ void *cookie)
+{
+ if (state->failed) {
+ /* PC is suspect. Cannot consume it. */
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc)) {
+ /* Caller terminated the unwind. */
+ state->failed = true;
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return state->fp != state->final_fp;
+}
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_continue);
+
/*
* Unwind from one frame record (A) to the next frame record (B).
*
@@ -133,24 +162,26 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
* records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
* and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
*/
-static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
+static void notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
{
struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
unsigned long fp = state->fp;
struct stack_info info;
- /* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
- if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
- return -ENOENT;
-
- if (fp & 0x7)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (fp & 0x7) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
- if (!on_accessible_stack(tsk, fp, 16, &info))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (!on_accessible_stack(tsk, fp, 16, &info)) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
- if (test_bit(info.type, state->stacks_done))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (test_bit(info.type, state->stacks_done)) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
/*
* As stacks grow downward, any valid record on the same stack must be
@@ -166,8 +197,10 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
* stack.
*/
if (info.type == state->prev_type) {
- if (fp <= state->prev_fp)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (fp <= state->prev_fp) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
} else {
set_bit(state->prev_type, state->stacks_done);
}
@@ -195,8 +228,10 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
*/
orig_pc = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(tsk, NULL, state->pc,
(void *)state->fp);
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(state->pc == orig_pc))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(state->pc == orig_pc)) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
state->pc = orig_pc;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER */
@@ -204,23 +239,14 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
if (is_kretprobe_trampoline(state->pc))
state->pc = kretprobe_find_ret_addr(tsk, (void *)state->fp, &state->kr_cur);
#endif
-
- return 0;
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
{
- while (1) {
- int ret;
-
- if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc))
- break;
- ret = unwind_next(state);
- if (ret < 0)
- break;
- }
+ while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
+ unwind_next(state);
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 3/7] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Change the loop in unwind()
===========================
Change the unwind loop in unwind() to:
while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
unwind_next(state);
This is easy to understand and maintain.
New function unwind_continue()
==============================
Define a new function unwind_continue() that is used in the unwind loop
to check for conditions that terminate a stack trace.
The conditions checked are:
- If the bottom of the stack (final frame) has been reached,
terminate.
- If the consume_entry() function returns false, the caller of
unwind has asked to terminate the stack trace. So, terminate.
- If unwind_next() failed for some reason (like stack corruption),
terminate.
Do not return an error value from unwind_next()
===============================================
We want to check for terminating conditions only in unwind_continue() from
the unwinder loop. So, do not return an error value from unwind_next().
Simply set a flag in unwind_state and check the flag in unwind_continue().
Final FP
========
Introduce a new field "final_fp" in "struct unwind_state". Initialize this
to the final frame of the stack trace:
task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe
This is where the stacktrace must terminate if it is successful. Add an
explicit comment to that effect.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 8e43444d50e2..c749129aba5a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -40,6 +40,10 @@
* value.
*
* @task: The task being unwound.
+ *
+ * @final_fp: Pointer to the final frame.
+ *
+ * @failed: Unwind failed.
*/
struct unwind_state {
unsigned long fp;
@@ -51,6 +55,8 @@ struct unwind_state {
struct llist_node *kr_cur;
#endif
struct task_struct *task;
+ unsigned long final_fp;
+ bool failed;
};
static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
@@ -73,6 +79,10 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
bitmap_zero(state->stacks_done, __NR_STACK_TYPES);
state->prev_fp = 0;
state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
+ state->failed = false;
+
+ /* Stack trace terminates here. */
+ state->final_fp = (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe;
}
/*
@@ -126,6 +136,25 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
}
+static bool notrace unwind_continue(struct unwind_state *state,
+ stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
+ void *cookie)
+{
+ if (state->failed) {
+ /* PC is suspect. Cannot consume it. */
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc)) {
+ /* Caller terminated the unwind. */
+ state->failed = true;
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return state->fp != state->final_fp;
+}
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_continue);
+
/*
* Unwind from one frame record (A) to the next frame record (B).
*
@@ -133,24 +162,26 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
* records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
* and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
*/
-static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
+static void notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
{
struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
unsigned long fp = state->fp;
struct stack_info info;
- /* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
- if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
- return -ENOENT;
-
- if (fp & 0x7)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (fp & 0x7) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
- if (!on_accessible_stack(tsk, fp, 16, &info))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (!on_accessible_stack(tsk, fp, 16, &info)) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
- if (test_bit(info.type, state->stacks_done))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (test_bit(info.type, state->stacks_done)) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
/*
* As stacks grow downward, any valid record on the same stack must be
@@ -166,8 +197,10 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
* stack.
*/
if (info.type == state->prev_type) {
- if (fp <= state->prev_fp)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (fp <= state->prev_fp) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
} else {
set_bit(state->prev_type, state->stacks_done);
}
@@ -195,8 +228,10 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
*/
orig_pc = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(tsk, NULL, state->pc,
(void *)state->fp);
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(state->pc == orig_pc))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(state->pc == orig_pc)) {
+ state->failed = true;
+ return;
+ }
state->pc = orig_pc;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER */
@@ -204,23 +239,14 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
if (is_kretprobe_trampoline(state->pc))
state->pc = kretprobe_find_ret_addr(tsk, (void *)state->fp, &state->kr_cur);
#endif
-
- return 0;
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
{
- while (1) {
- int ret;
-
- if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc))
- break;
- ret = unwind_next(state);
- if (ret < 0)
- break;
- }
+ while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
+ unwind_next(state);
}
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 4/7] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 4/7] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 5/7] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling conventions. Check if the
return PC in a stack frame falls in any of these. If it does, consider the
stack trace unreliable.
Define a special section for unreliable functions
=================================================
Define a SYM_CODE_END() macro for arm64 that adds the function address
range to a new section called "sym_code_functions".
Linker file
===========
Include the "sym_code_functions" section under read-only data in
vmlinux.lds.S.
Initialization
==============
Define an early_initcall() to create a sym_code_functions[] array from
the linker data.
Unwinder check
==============
Add a reliability check in unwind_check_reliability() that compares a
return PC with sym_code_functions[]. If there is a match, then return
failure.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 +++++++
arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++++++
4 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h
index 43f8c25b3fda..d4058de4af78 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h
@@ -39,4 +39,15 @@
SYM_START(name, SYM_L_WEAK, SYM_A_NONE) \
bti c ;
+/*
+ * Record the address range of each SYM_CODE function in a struct code_range
+ * in a special section.
+ */
+#define SYM_CODE_END(name) \
+ SYM_END(name, SYM_T_NONE) ;\
+99: .pushsection "sym_code_functions", "aw" ;\
+ .quad name ;\
+ .quad 99b ;\
+ .popsection
+
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h
index 40971ac1303f..50cfd1083563 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern char __irqentry_text_start[], __irqentry_text_end[];
extern char __mmuoff_data_start[], __mmuoff_data_end[];
extern char __entry_tramp_text_start[], __entry_tramp_text_end[];
extern char __relocate_new_kernel_start[], __relocate_new_kernel_end[];
+extern char __sym_code_functions_start[], __sym_code_functions_end[];
static inline size_t entry_tramp_text_size(void)
{
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 5ef2ce217324..eda8581f7dbe 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -62,6 +62,31 @@ struct unwind_state {
bool reliable;
};
+struct code_range {
+ unsigned long start;
+ unsigned long end;
+};
+
+static struct code_range *sym_code_functions;
+static int num_sym_code_functions;
+
+int __init init_sym_code_functions(void)
+{
+ size_t size = (unsigned long)__sym_code_functions_end -
+ (unsigned long)__sym_code_functions_start;
+
+ sym_code_functions = (struct code_range *)__sym_code_functions_start;
+ /*
+ * Order it so that sym_code_functions is not visible before
+ * num_sym_code_functions.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+ num_sym_code_functions = size / sizeof(struct code_range);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+early_initcall(init_sym_code_functions);
+
static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
struct task_struct *task)
{
@@ -251,6 +276,10 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
*/
static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
{
+ const struct code_range *range;
+ unsigned long pc;
+ int i;
+
if (state->fp == state->final_fp) {
/* Final frame; no more unwind, no need to check reliability */
return;
@@ -263,6 +292,32 @@ static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
*/
if (!__kernel_text_address(state->pc))
state->reliable = false;
+
+ /*
+ * Check the return PC against sym_code_functions[]. If there is a
+ * match, then the consider the stack frame unreliable.
+ *
+ * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling conventions,
+ * we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function cannot be unwound
+ * reliably.
+ *
+ * Note that this includes:
+ *
+ * - Exception handlers and entry assembly
+ * - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
+ * - Hypervisor-related assembly
+ * - Hibernation-related assembly
+ * - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
+ * - Kernel relocation assembly
+ */
+ pc = state->pc;
+ for (i = 0; i < num_sym_code_functions; i++) {
+ range = &sym_code_functions[i];
+ if (pc >= range->start && pc < range->end) {
+ state->reliable = false;
+ return;
+ }
+ }
}
static bool notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
index edaf0faf766f..55b61fefb643 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
@@ -122,6 +122,14 @@ jiffies = jiffies_64;
#define TRAMP_TEXT
#endif
+#define SYM_CODE_FUNCTIONS \
+ . = ALIGN(16); \
+ .symcode : AT(ADDR(.symcode) - LOAD_OFFSET) { \
+ __sym_code_functions_start = .; \
+ KEEP(*(sym_code_functions)) \
+ __sym_code_functions_end = .; \
+ }
+
/*
* The size of the PE/COFF section that covers the kernel image, which
* runs from _stext to _edata, must be a round multiple of the PE/COFF
@@ -209,6 +217,8 @@ SECTIONS
swapper_pg_dir = .;
. += PAGE_SIZE;
+ SYM_CODE_FUNCTIONS
+
. = ALIGN(SEGMENT_ALIGN);
__init_begin = .;
__inittext_begin = .;
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 5/7] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling conventions. Check if the
return PC in a stack frame falls in any of these. If it does, consider the
stack trace unreliable.
Define a special section for unreliable functions
=================================================
Define a SYM_CODE_END() macro for arm64 that adds the function address
range to a new section called "sym_code_functions".
Linker file
===========
Include the "sym_code_functions" section under read-only data in
vmlinux.lds.S.
Initialization
==============
Define an early_initcall() to create a sym_code_functions[] array from
the linker data.
Unwinder check
==============
Add a reliability check in unwind_check_reliability() that compares a
return PC with sym_code_functions[]. If there is a match, then return
failure.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 +++++++
arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++++++
4 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h
index 43f8c25b3fda..d4058de4af78 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h
@@ -39,4 +39,15 @@
SYM_START(name, SYM_L_WEAK, SYM_A_NONE) \
bti c ;
+/*
+ * Record the address range of each SYM_CODE function in a struct code_range
+ * in a special section.
+ */
+#define SYM_CODE_END(name) \
+ SYM_END(name, SYM_T_NONE) ;\
+99: .pushsection "sym_code_functions", "aw" ;\
+ .quad name ;\
+ .quad 99b ;\
+ .popsection
+
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h
index 40971ac1303f..50cfd1083563 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern char __irqentry_text_start[], __irqentry_text_end[];
extern char __mmuoff_data_start[], __mmuoff_data_end[];
extern char __entry_tramp_text_start[], __entry_tramp_text_end[];
extern char __relocate_new_kernel_start[], __relocate_new_kernel_end[];
+extern char __sym_code_functions_start[], __sym_code_functions_end[];
static inline size_t entry_tramp_text_size(void)
{
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 5ef2ce217324..eda8581f7dbe 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -62,6 +62,31 @@ struct unwind_state {
bool reliable;
};
+struct code_range {
+ unsigned long start;
+ unsigned long end;
+};
+
+static struct code_range *sym_code_functions;
+static int num_sym_code_functions;
+
+int __init init_sym_code_functions(void)
+{
+ size_t size = (unsigned long)__sym_code_functions_end -
+ (unsigned long)__sym_code_functions_start;
+
+ sym_code_functions = (struct code_range *)__sym_code_functions_start;
+ /*
+ * Order it so that sym_code_functions is not visible before
+ * num_sym_code_functions.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+ num_sym_code_functions = size / sizeof(struct code_range);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+early_initcall(init_sym_code_functions);
+
static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
struct task_struct *task)
{
@@ -251,6 +276,10 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
*/
static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
{
+ const struct code_range *range;
+ unsigned long pc;
+ int i;
+
if (state->fp == state->final_fp) {
/* Final frame; no more unwind, no need to check reliability */
return;
@@ -263,6 +292,32 @@ static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
*/
if (!__kernel_text_address(state->pc))
state->reliable = false;
+
+ /*
+ * Check the return PC against sym_code_functions[]. If there is a
+ * match, then the consider the stack frame unreliable.
+ *
+ * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling conventions,
+ * we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function cannot be unwound
+ * reliably.
+ *
+ * Note that this includes:
+ *
+ * - Exception handlers and entry assembly
+ * - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
+ * - Hypervisor-related assembly
+ * - Hibernation-related assembly
+ * - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
+ * - Kernel relocation assembly
+ */
+ pc = state->pc;
+ for (i = 0; i < num_sym_code_functions; i++) {
+ range = &sym_code_functions[i];
+ if (pc >= range->start && pc < range->end) {
+ state->reliable = false;
+ return;
+ }
+ }
}
static bool notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
index edaf0faf766f..55b61fefb643 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
@@ -122,6 +122,14 @@ jiffies = jiffies_64;
#define TRAMP_TEXT
#endif
+#define SYM_CODE_FUNCTIONS \
+ . = ALIGN(16); \
+ .symcode : AT(ADDR(.symcode) - LOAD_OFFSET) { \
+ __sym_code_functions_start = .; \
+ KEEP(*(sym_code_functions)) \
+ __sym_code_functions_end = .; \
+ }
+
/*
* The size of the PE/COFF section that covers the kernel image, which
* runs from _stext to _edata, must be a round multiple of the PE/COFF
@@ -209,6 +217,8 @@ SECTIONS
swapper_pg_dir = .;
. += PAGE_SIZE;
+ SYM_CODE_FUNCTIONS
+
. = ALIGN(SEGMENT_ALIGN);
__init_begin = .;
__inittext_begin = .;
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 6/7] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
arch_stack_walk() except that it returns -EINVAL if the stack trace is not
reliable.
Until all the reliability checks are in place, arch_stack_walk_reliable()
may not be used by livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index eda8581f7dbe..8016ba0e2c96 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -383,3 +383,26 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
}
+
+/*
+ * arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used for livepatch until all of
+ * the reliability checks are in place in unwind_consume(). However,
+ * debug and test code can choose to use it even if all the checks are not
+ * in place.
+ */
+noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(
+ stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
+ void *cookie,
+ struct task_struct *task)
+{
+ struct unwind_state state;
+ bool reliable;
+
+ if (task == current)
+ unwind_init_from_caller(&state);
+ else
+ unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
+
+ reliable = unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
+ return reliable ? 0 : -EINVAL;
+}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* [PATCH v14 6/7] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
arch_stack_walk() except that it returns -EINVAL if the stack trace is not
reliable.
Until all the reliability checks are in place, arch_stack_walk_reliable()
may not be used by livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index eda8581f7dbe..8016ba0e2c96 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -383,3 +383,26 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
}
+
+/*
+ * arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used for livepatch until all of
+ * the reliability checks are in place in unwind_consume(). However,
+ * debug and test code can choose to use it even if all the checks are not
+ * in place.
+ */
+noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(
+ stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
+ void *cookie,
+ struct task_struct *task)
+{
+ struct unwind_state state;
+ bool reliable;
+
+ if (task == current)
+ unwind_init_from_caller(&state);
+ else
+ unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
+
+ reliable = unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
+ return reliable ? 0 : -EINVAL;
+}
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE in arm64/Kconfig to allow
arch_stack_walk_reliable() to be used.
Note that this is conditional upon STACK_VALIDATION which will be added
when frame pointer validation is implemented (say via objtool).
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 57c4c995965f..f7b9d0fecf95 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ config ARM64
select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
select HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_MINOR if USERFAULTFD
select TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT
+ select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE if FRAME_POINTER && STACK_VALIDATION
help
ARM 64-bit (AArch64) Linux support.
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
@ 2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: madvenka @ 2022-04-13 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel, madvenka
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE in arm64/Kconfig to allow
arch_stack_walk_reliable() to be used.
Note that this is conditional upon STACK_VALIDATION which will be added
when frame pointer validation is implemented (say via objtool).
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 57c4c995965f..f7b9d0fecf95 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ config ARM64
select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
select HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_MINOR if USERFAULTFD
select TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT
+ select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE if FRAME_POINTER && STACK_VALIDATION
help
ARM 64-bit (AArch64) Linux support.
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-04-13 14:11 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-04-13 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel
Hi Mark Rutland,
I have addressed all of your comments and Mark Brown's comments so far. Could you pick up the ones you and Mark Brown have already OKed except for the comments that had to be addressed? If they look good, please include them
with the other patches in your branch:
arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
Thanks!
Madhavan
On 4/13/22 09:05, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
>
> Split unwind_init()
> ===================
>
> Unwind initialization has 3 cases. Accordingly, define 3 separate init
> functions as follows:
>
> - unwind_init_from_regs()
> - unwind_init_from_current()
> - unwind_init_from_task()
>
> This makes it easier to understand and add specialized code to each case
> in the future.
>
> Copy task argument
> ==================
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop
> ==========================
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop and make it simple and somewhat similar to other
> architectures. Define the following:
>
> while (unwind_continue(&state, consume_entry, cookie))
> unwind_next(&state);
>
> unwind_continue()
> This new function implements checks to determine whether the
> unwind should continue or terminate.
>
> Reliability checks
> ==================
>
> 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 boolean "reliable" in the stackframe. Call
> unwind_check_reliability() for every frame.
>
> 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.
>
> Make unwind() return a boolean to indicate reliability of the stack trace.
>
> SYM_CODE check
> ==============
>
> This is the second reliability check implemented.
>
> SYM_CODE functions do not follow normal calling conventions. They cannot
> be unwound reliably using the frame pointer. Collect the address ranges
> of these functions in a special section called "sym_code_functions".
>
> In unwind_check_reliability(), check the return PC against these ranges. If
> a match is found, then mark the stack trace unreliable.
>
> Last stack frame
> ================
>
> If a SYM_CODE function occurs in the very last frame in the stack trace,
> then the stack trace is not considered unreliable. This is because there
> is no more unwinding to do. Examples:
>
> - EL0 exception stack traces end in the top level EL0 exception
> handlers.
>
> - All kernel thread stack traces end in ret_from_fork().
>
> arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> ==========================
>
> Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
> arch_stack_walk() except that it returns an error if the stack trace is
> found to be unreliable.
>
> Until all of the reliability checks are in place in
> unwind_check_reliability(), arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used by
> livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
>
> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> ========================
>
> Select this config for arm64. However, make it conditional on
> STACK_VALIDATION. When objtool is enhanced to implement stack
> validation for arm64, STACK_VALIDATION will be defined.
>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v14:
> - Some of the patches from v13 have been added to the branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux.
>
> I have rebased the rest of the patches on top of that.
>
> From Mark Rutland, Mark Brown:
>
> - Add requirements for the three helper functions that init a stack
> trace.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Change the comment for the task field in struct stackframe.
>
> - Hard code the task to current in unwind_init_from_regs(). Add a
> sanity check task == current.
>
> - Rename unwind_init_from_current() to unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> - Remove task argument from unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-By: for:
>
> [PATCH v13 05/11] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> v13:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 05/10] arm64: Copy unwind arguments to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 07/10] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks
> in the unwinder
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 01/10] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame()
> [PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
>
> - For each of the 3 cases of unwind initialization, have a separate
> init function. Call the common init from each of these init
> functions rather than call it separately.
>
> - Only copy the task argument to arch_stack_walk() into
> unwind state. Pass the rest of the arguments as arguments to
> unwind functions.
>
> v12:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within
> walk_stackframe()
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v11 3/5] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to
> other architectures
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> - Add an extra patch at the end to select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> just as a place holder for the review. I have added it and made
> it conditional on STACK_VALIDATION which has not yet been
> implemented.
>
> - Mark had a concern about the code for the check for the final
> frame being repeated in two places. I have now added a new
> field called "final_fp" in struct stackframe which I compute
> once in stacktrace initialization. I have added an explicit
> comment that the stacktrace must terminate at the final_fp.
>
> - Place the implementation of arch_stack_walk_reliable() in a
> separate patch after all the reliability checks have been
> implemented.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Place the removal of the NULL task check in unwind_frame() in
> a separate patch.
>
> - Add a task field to struct stackframe so the task pointer can be
> passed around via the frame instead of as a separate argument. I have
> taken this a step further by copying all of the arguments to
> arch_stack_walk() into struct stackframe so that only that
> struct needs to be passed to unwind functions.
>
> - Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_init() instead of unwind_start().
>
> - Acked-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
>
> - Rename "struct stackframe" to "struct unwind_state".
>
> - Define separate inline functions for initializing the starting
> FP and PC from regs, or caller, or blocked task. Don't merge
> unwind_init() into unwind().
>
> v11:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Peter Zijlstra has submitted patches that make ARCH_STACKWALK
> independent of STACKTRACE. Mark Rutland extracted some of the
> patches from my v10 series and added his own patches and comments,
> rebased it on top of Peter's changes and submitted the series.
>
> So, I have rebased the rest of the patches from v10 on top of
> Mark Rutland's changes.
>
> - Split the renaming of the unwinder functions and annotating them
> with notrace and NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(). Also, there is currently no
> need to annotate unwind_start() as its caller is already annotated
> properly. So, I am removing the annotation patch from the series.
> This can be done separately later if deemed necessary. Similarly,
> I have removed the annotations from unwind_check_reliability() and
> unwind_continue().
>
> From Nobuta Keiya:
>
> - unwind_start() should check for final frame and not mark the
> final frame unreliable.
>
> v9, v10:
> - v9 had a threading problem. So, I resent it as v10.
>
> From me:
>
> - Removed the word "RFC" from the subject line as I believe this
> is mature enough to be a regular patch.
>
> From Mark Brown, Mark Rutland:
>
> - Split the patches into smaller, self-contained ones.
>
> - Always enable STACKTRACE so that arch_stack_walk() is always
> defined.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Update callchain_trace() take the return value of
> perf_callchain_store() into acount.
>
> - Restore get_wchan() behavior to the original code.
>
> - Simplify an if statement in dump_backtrace().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Do not abort the stack trace on the first unreliable frame.
>
>
> v8:
> - Synced to v5.14-rc5.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Make the unwinder loop similar to other architectures.
>
> - Keep details to within the unwinder functions and return a simple
> boolean to the caller.
>
> - Convert some of the current code that contains unwinder logic to
> simply use arch_stack_walk(). I have converted all of them.
>
> - Do not copy sym_code_functions[]. Just place it in rodata for now.
>
> - Have the main loop check for termination conditions rather than
> having unwind_frame() check for them. In other words, let
> unwind_frame() assume that the fp is valid.
>
> - Replace the big comment for SYM_CODE functions with a shorter
> comment.
>
> /*
> * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling
> * conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function
> * cannot be unwound reliably.
> *
> * Note that this includes:
> *
> * - Exception handlers and entry assembly
> * - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
> * - Hypervisor-related assembly
> * - Hibernation-related assembly
> * - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
> * - Kernel relocation assembly
> */
>
> v7:
> The Mailer screwed up the threading on this. So, I have resent this
> same series as version 8 with proper threading to avoid confusion.
> v6:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - The per-frame reliability concept and flag are acceptable. But more
> work is needed to make the per-frame checks more accurate and more
> complete. E.g., some code reorg is being worked on that will help.
>
> I have now removed the frame->reliable flag and deleted the whole
> concept of per-frame status. This is orthogonal to this patch series.
> Instead, I have improved the unwinder to return proper return codes
> so a caller can take appropriate action without needing per-frame
> status.
>
> - Remove the mention of PLTs and update the comment.
>
> I have replaced the comment above the call to __kernel_text_address()
> with the comment suggested by Mark Rutland.
>
> Other comments:
>
> - Other comments on the per-frame stuff are not relevant because
> that approach is not there anymore.
>
> v5:
> From Keiya Nobuta:
>
> - The term blacklist(ed) is not to be used anymore. I have changed it
> to unreliable. So, the function unwinder_blacklisted() has been
> changed to unwinder_is_unreliable().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Add a comment for the "reliable" flag in struct stackframe. The
> reliability attribute is not complete until all the checks are
> in place. Added a comment above struct stackframe.
>
> - Include some of the comments in the cover letter in the actual
> code so that we can compare it with the reliable stack trace
> requirements document for completeness. I have added a comment:
>
> - above unwinder_is_unreliable() that lists the requirements
> that are addressed by the function.
>
> - above the __kernel_text_address() call about all the cases
> the call covers.
>
> v4:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - I was checking the return PC with __kernel_text_address() before
> the Function Graph trace handling. Mark Brown felt that all the
> reliability checks should be performed on the original return PC
> once that is obtained. So, I have moved all the reliability checks
> to after the Function Graph Trace handling code in the unwinder.
> Basically, the unwinder should perform PC translations first (for
> rhe return trampoline for Function Graph Tracing, Kretprobes, etc).
> Then, the reliability checks should be applied to the resulting
> PC.
>
> - Mark said to improve the naming of the new functions so they don't
> collide with existing ones. I have used a prefix "unwinder_" for
> all the new functions.
>
> From Josh Poimboeuf:
>
> - In the error scenarios in the unwinder, the reliable flag in the
> stack frame should be set. Implemented this.
>
> - Some of the other comments are not relevant to the new code as
> I have taken a different approach in the new code. That is why
> I have not made those changes. E.g., Ard wanted me to add the
> "const" keyword to the global section array. That array does not
> exist in v4. Similarly, Mark Brown said to use ARRAY_SIZE() for
> the same array in a for loop.
>
> Other changes:
>
> - Add a new definition for SYM_CODE_END() that adds the address
> range of the function to a special section called
> "sym_code_functions".
>
> - Include the new section under initdata in vmlinux.lds.S.
>
> - Define an early_initcall() to copy the contents of the
> "sym_code_functions" section to an array by the same name.
>
> - Define a function unwinder_blacklisted() that compares a return
> PC against sym_code_sections[]. If there is a match, mark the
> stack trace unreliable. Call this from unwind_frame().
>
> v3:
> - Implemented a sym_code_ranges[] array to contains sections bounds
> for text sections that contain SYM_CODE_*() functions. The unwinder
> checks each return PC against the sections. If it falls in any of
> the sections, the stack trace is marked unreliable.
>
> - Moved SYM_CODE functions from .text and .init.text into a new
> text section called ".code.text". Added this section to
> vmlinux.lds.S and sym_code_ranges[].
>
> - Fixed the logic in the unwinder that handles Function Graph
> Tracer return trampoline.
>
> - Removed all the previous code that handles:
> - ftrace entry code for traced function
> - special_functions[] array that lists individual functions
> - kretprobe_trampoline() special case
>
> v2
> - Removed the terminating entry { 0, 0 } in special_functions[]
> and replaced it with the idiom { /* sentinel */ }.
>
> - Change the ftrace trampoline entry ftrace_graph_call in
> special_functions[] to ftrace_call + 4 and added explanatory
> comments.
>
> - Unnested #ifdefs in special_functions[] for FTRACE.
>
> v1
> - Define a bool field in struct stackframe. This will indicate if
> a stack trace is reliable.
>
> - Implement a special_functions[] array that will be populated
> with special functions in which the stack trace is considered
> unreliable.
>
> - Using kallsyms_lookup(), get the address ranges for the special
> functions and record them.
>
> - Implement an is_reliable_function(pc). This function will check
> if a given return PC falls in any of the special functions. If
> it does, the stack trace is unreliable.
>
> - Implement check_reliability() function that will check if a
> stack frame is reliable. Call is_reliable_function() from
> check_reliability().
>
> - Before a return PC is checked against special_funtions[], it
> must be validates as a proper kernel text address. Call
> __kernel_text_address() from check_reliability().
>
> - Finally, call check_reliability() from unwind_frame() for
> each stack frame.
>
> - Add EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
>
> el1_sync();
> el1_irq();
> el1_error();
> el1_sync_invalid();
> el1_irq_invalid();
> el1_fiq_invalid();
> el1_error_invalid();
>
> - The above functions are currently defined as LOCAL symbols.
> Make them global so that they can be referenced from the
> unwinder code.
>
> - Add FTRACE trampolines to special_functions[]:
>
> ftrace_graph_call()
> ftrace_graph_caller()
> return_to_handler()
>
> - Add the kretprobe trampoline to special functions[]:
>
> kretprobe_trampoline()
>
> Previous versions and discussion
> ================================
>
> v13: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v12: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220103165212.9303-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#m21e86eecb9b8f0831196568f0bf62c3b56f65bf0
> v11: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v10: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/4b3d5552-590c-e6a0-866b-9bc51da7bebf@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v9: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v10 with proper threading.
> v8: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210812190603.25326-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v7: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v8 with proper threading.
> v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210630223356.58714-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210526214917.20099-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210405204313.21346-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210330190955.13707-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
>
> Madhavan T. Venkataraman (7):
> arm64: Split unwind_init()
> arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
> arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
> arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against
> list
> arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 266 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++
> 5 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 5ec58b607fab3cb6f6519103f663731b7bb749f3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
@ 2022-04-13 14:11 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-04-13 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel
Hi Mark Rutland,
I have addressed all of your comments and Mark Brown's comments so far. Could you pick up the ones you and Mark Brown have already OKed except for the comments that had to be addressed? If they look good, please include them
with the other patches in your branch:
arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
Thanks!
Madhavan
On 4/13/22 09:05, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
>
> Split unwind_init()
> ===================
>
> Unwind initialization has 3 cases. Accordingly, define 3 separate init
> functions as follows:
>
> - unwind_init_from_regs()
> - unwind_init_from_current()
> - unwind_init_from_task()
>
> This makes it easier to understand and add specialized code to each case
> in the future.
>
> Copy task argument
> ==================
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop
> ==========================
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop and make it simple and somewhat similar to other
> architectures. Define the following:
>
> while (unwind_continue(&state, consume_entry, cookie))
> unwind_next(&state);
>
> unwind_continue()
> This new function implements checks to determine whether the
> unwind should continue or terminate.
>
> Reliability checks
> ==================
>
> 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 boolean "reliable" in the stackframe. Call
> unwind_check_reliability() for every frame.
>
> 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.
>
> Make unwind() return a boolean to indicate reliability of the stack trace.
>
> SYM_CODE check
> ==============
>
> This is the second reliability check implemented.
>
> SYM_CODE functions do not follow normal calling conventions. They cannot
> be unwound reliably using the frame pointer. Collect the address ranges
> of these functions in a special section called "sym_code_functions".
>
> In unwind_check_reliability(), check the return PC against these ranges. If
> a match is found, then mark the stack trace unreliable.
>
> Last stack frame
> ================
>
> If a SYM_CODE function occurs in the very last frame in the stack trace,
> then the stack trace is not considered unreliable. This is because there
> is no more unwinding to do. Examples:
>
> - EL0 exception stack traces end in the top level EL0 exception
> handlers.
>
> - All kernel thread stack traces end in ret_from_fork().
>
> arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> ==========================
>
> Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
> arch_stack_walk() except that it returns an error if the stack trace is
> found to be unreliable.
>
> Until all of the reliability checks are in place in
> unwind_check_reliability(), arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used by
> livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
>
> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> ========================
>
> Select this config for arm64. However, make it conditional on
> STACK_VALIDATION. When objtool is enhanced to implement stack
> validation for arm64, STACK_VALIDATION will be defined.
>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v14:
> - Some of the patches from v13 have been added to the branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux.
>
> I have rebased the rest of the patches on top of that.
>
> From Mark Rutland, Mark Brown:
>
> - Add requirements for the three helper functions that init a stack
> trace.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Change the comment for the task field in struct stackframe.
>
> - Hard code the task to current in unwind_init_from_regs(). Add a
> sanity check task == current.
>
> - Rename unwind_init_from_current() to unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> - Remove task argument from unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-By: for:
>
> [PATCH v13 05/11] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> v13:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 05/10] arm64: Copy unwind arguments to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 07/10] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks
> in the unwinder
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 01/10] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame()
> [PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
>
> - For each of the 3 cases of unwind initialization, have a separate
> init function. Call the common init from each of these init
> functions rather than call it separately.
>
> - Only copy the task argument to arch_stack_walk() into
> unwind state. Pass the rest of the arguments as arguments to
> unwind functions.
>
> v12:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within
> walk_stackframe()
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v11 3/5] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to
> other architectures
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> - Add an extra patch at the end to select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> just as a place holder for the review. I have added it and made
> it conditional on STACK_VALIDATION which has not yet been
> implemented.
>
> - Mark had a concern about the code for the check for the final
> frame being repeated in two places. I have now added a new
> field called "final_fp" in struct stackframe which I compute
> once in stacktrace initialization. I have added an explicit
> comment that the stacktrace must terminate at the final_fp.
>
> - Place the implementation of arch_stack_walk_reliable() in a
> separate patch after all the reliability checks have been
> implemented.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Place the removal of the NULL task check in unwind_frame() in
> a separate patch.
>
> - Add a task field to struct stackframe so the task pointer can be
> passed around via the frame instead of as a separate argument. I have
> taken this a step further by copying all of the arguments to
> arch_stack_walk() into struct stackframe so that only that
> struct needs to be passed to unwind functions.
>
> - Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_init() instead of unwind_start().
>
> - Acked-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
>
> - Rename "struct stackframe" to "struct unwind_state".
>
> - Define separate inline functions for initializing the starting
> FP and PC from regs, or caller, or blocked task. Don't merge
> unwind_init() into unwind().
>
> v11:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Peter Zijlstra has submitted patches that make ARCH_STACKWALK
> independent of STACKTRACE. Mark Rutland extracted some of the
> patches from my v10 series and added his own patches and comments,
> rebased it on top of Peter's changes and submitted the series.
>
> So, I have rebased the rest of the patches from v10 on top of
> Mark Rutland's changes.
>
> - Split the renaming of the unwinder functions and annotating them
> with notrace and NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(). Also, there is currently no
> need to annotate unwind_start() as its caller is already annotated
> properly. So, I am removing the annotation patch from the series.
> This can be done separately later if deemed necessary. Similarly,
> I have removed the annotations from unwind_check_reliability() and
> unwind_continue().
>
> From Nobuta Keiya:
>
> - unwind_start() should check for final frame and not mark the
> final frame unreliable.
>
> v9, v10:
> - v9 had a threading problem. So, I resent it as v10.
>
> From me:
>
> - Removed the word "RFC" from the subject line as I believe this
> is mature enough to be a regular patch.
>
> From Mark Brown, Mark Rutland:
>
> - Split the patches into smaller, self-contained ones.
>
> - Always enable STACKTRACE so that arch_stack_walk() is always
> defined.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Update callchain_trace() take the return value of
> perf_callchain_store() into acount.
>
> - Restore get_wchan() behavior to the original code.
>
> - Simplify an if statement in dump_backtrace().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Do not abort the stack trace on the first unreliable frame.
>
>
> v8:
> - Synced to v5.14-rc5.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Make the unwinder loop similar to other architectures.
>
> - Keep details to within the unwinder functions and return a simple
> boolean to the caller.
>
> - Convert some of the current code that contains unwinder logic to
> simply use arch_stack_walk(). I have converted all of them.
>
> - Do not copy sym_code_functions[]. Just place it in rodata for now.
>
> - Have the main loop check for termination conditions rather than
> having unwind_frame() check for them. In other words, let
> unwind_frame() assume that the fp is valid.
>
> - Replace the big comment for SYM_CODE functions with a shorter
> comment.
>
> /*
> * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling
> * conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function
> * cannot be unwound reliably.
> *
> * Note that this includes:
> *
> * - Exception handlers and entry assembly
> * - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
> * - Hypervisor-related assembly
> * - Hibernation-related assembly
> * - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
> * - Kernel relocation assembly
> */
>
> v7:
> The Mailer screwed up the threading on this. So, I have resent this
> same series as version 8 with proper threading to avoid confusion.
> v6:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - The per-frame reliability concept and flag are acceptable. But more
> work is needed to make the per-frame checks more accurate and more
> complete. E.g., some code reorg is being worked on that will help.
>
> I have now removed the frame->reliable flag and deleted the whole
> concept of per-frame status. This is orthogonal to this patch series.
> Instead, I have improved the unwinder to return proper return codes
> so a caller can take appropriate action without needing per-frame
> status.
>
> - Remove the mention of PLTs and update the comment.
>
> I have replaced the comment above the call to __kernel_text_address()
> with the comment suggested by Mark Rutland.
>
> Other comments:
>
> - Other comments on the per-frame stuff are not relevant because
> that approach is not there anymore.
>
> v5:
> From Keiya Nobuta:
>
> - The term blacklist(ed) is not to be used anymore. I have changed it
> to unreliable. So, the function unwinder_blacklisted() has been
> changed to unwinder_is_unreliable().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Add a comment for the "reliable" flag in struct stackframe. The
> reliability attribute is not complete until all the checks are
> in place. Added a comment above struct stackframe.
>
> - Include some of the comments in the cover letter in the actual
> code so that we can compare it with the reliable stack trace
> requirements document for completeness. I have added a comment:
>
> - above unwinder_is_unreliable() that lists the requirements
> that are addressed by the function.
>
> - above the __kernel_text_address() call about all the cases
> the call covers.
>
> v4:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - I was checking the return PC with __kernel_text_address() before
> the Function Graph trace handling. Mark Brown felt that all the
> reliability checks should be performed on the original return PC
> once that is obtained. So, I have moved all the reliability checks
> to after the Function Graph Trace handling code in the unwinder.
> Basically, the unwinder should perform PC translations first (for
> rhe return trampoline for Function Graph Tracing, Kretprobes, etc).
> Then, the reliability checks should be applied to the resulting
> PC.
>
> - Mark said to improve the naming of the new functions so they don't
> collide with existing ones. I have used a prefix "unwinder_" for
> all the new functions.
>
> From Josh Poimboeuf:
>
> - In the error scenarios in the unwinder, the reliable flag in the
> stack frame should be set. Implemented this.
>
> - Some of the other comments are not relevant to the new code as
> I have taken a different approach in the new code. That is why
> I have not made those changes. E.g., Ard wanted me to add the
> "const" keyword to the global section array. That array does not
> exist in v4. Similarly, Mark Brown said to use ARRAY_SIZE() for
> the same array in a for loop.
>
> Other changes:
>
> - Add a new definition for SYM_CODE_END() that adds the address
> range of the function to a special section called
> "sym_code_functions".
>
> - Include the new section under initdata in vmlinux.lds.S.
>
> - Define an early_initcall() to copy the contents of the
> "sym_code_functions" section to an array by the same name.
>
> - Define a function unwinder_blacklisted() that compares a return
> PC against sym_code_sections[]. If there is a match, mark the
> stack trace unreliable. Call this from unwind_frame().
>
> v3:
> - Implemented a sym_code_ranges[] array to contains sections bounds
> for text sections that contain SYM_CODE_*() functions. The unwinder
> checks each return PC against the sections. If it falls in any of
> the sections, the stack trace is marked unreliable.
>
> - Moved SYM_CODE functions from .text and .init.text into a new
> text section called ".code.text". Added this section to
> vmlinux.lds.S and sym_code_ranges[].
>
> - Fixed the logic in the unwinder that handles Function Graph
> Tracer return trampoline.
>
> - Removed all the previous code that handles:
> - ftrace entry code for traced function
> - special_functions[] array that lists individual functions
> - kretprobe_trampoline() special case
>
> v2
> - Removed the terminating entry { 0, 0 } in special_functions[]
> and replaced it with the idiom { /* sentinel */ }.
>
> - Change the ftrace trampoline entry ftrace_graph_call in
> special_functions[] to ftrace_call + 4 and added explanatory
> comments.
>
> - Unnested #ifdefs in special_functions[] for FTRACE.
>
> v1
> - Define a bool field in struct stackframe. This will indicate if
> a stack trace is reliable.
>
> - Implement a special_functions[] array that will be populated
> with special functions in which the stack trace is considered
> unreliable.
>
> - Using kallsyms_lookup(), get the address ranges for the special
> functions and record them.
>
> - Implement an is_reliable_function(pc). This function will check
> if a given return PC falls in any of the special functions. If
> it does, the stack trace is unreliable.
>
> - Implement check_reliability() function that will check if a
> stack frame is reliable. Call is_reliable_function() from
> check_reliability().
>
> - Before a return PC is checked against special_funtions[], it
> must be validates as a proper kernel text address. Call
> __kernel_text_address() from check_reliability().
>
> - Finally, call check_reliability() from unwind_frame() for
> each stack frame.
>
> - Add EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
>
> el1_sync();
> el1_irq();
> el1_error();
> el1_sync_invalid();
> el1_irq_invalid();
> el1_fiq_invalid();
> el1_error_invalid();
>
> - The above functions are currently defined as LOCAL symbols.
> Make them global so that they can be referenced from the
> unwinder code.
>
> - Add FTRACE trampolines to special_functions[]:
>
> ftrace_graph_call()
> ftrace_graph_caller()
> return_to_handler()
>
> - Add the kretprobe trampoline to special functions[]:
>
> kretprobe_trampoline()
>
> Previous versions and discussion
> ================================
>
> v13: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v12: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220103165212.9303-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#m21e86eecb9b8f0831196568f0bf62c3b56f65bf0
> v11: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v10: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/4b3d5552-590c-e6a0-866b-9bc51da7bebf@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v9: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v10 with proper threading.
> v8: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210812190603.25326-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v7: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v8 with proper threading.
> v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210630223356.58714-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210526214917.20099-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210405204313.21346-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210330190955.13707-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
>
> Madhavan T. Venkataraman (7):
> arm64: Split unwind_init()
> arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
> arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
> arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against
> list
> arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 266 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++
> 5 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 5ec58b607fab3cb6f6519103f663731b7bb749f3
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-06-02 22:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-06-02 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel
Hi Mark Rutland,
Could you please take a look? I have addressed all of the comments so far.
Mark Brown has reviewed all the patches. If you OK them as well, I can request that this patchset be accepted.
If the very last one that selects HAVE_RELIABLE_STACK_TRACE is controversial, I can remove it from the patchset.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Madhavan
On 4/13/22 09:05, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
>
> Split unwind_init()
> ===================
>
> Unwind initialization has 3 cases. Accordingly, define 3 separate init
> functions as follows:
>
> - unwind_init_from_regs()
> - unwind_init_from_current()
> - unwind_init_from_task()
>
> This makes it easier to understand and add specialized code to each case
> in the future.
>
> Copy task argument
> ==================
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop
> ==========================
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop and make it simple and somewhat similar to other
> architectures. Define the following:
>
> while (unwind_continue(&state, consume_entry, cookie))
> unwind_next(&state);
>
> unwind_continue()
> This new function implements checks to determine whether the
> unwind should continue or terminate.
>
> Reliability checks
> ==================
>
> 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 boolean "reliable" in the stackframe. Call
> unwind_check_reliability() for every frame.
>
> 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.
>
> Make unwind() return a boolean to indicate reliability of the stack trace.
>
> SYM_CODE check
> ==============
>
> This is the second reliability check implemented.
>
> SYM_CODE functions do not follow normal calling conventions. They cannot
> be unwound reliably using the frame pointer. Collect the address ranges
> of these functions in a special section called "sym_code_functions".
>
> In unwind_check_reliability(), check the return PC against these ranges. If
> a match is found, then mark the stack trace unreliable.
>
> Last stack frame
> ================
>
> If a SYM_CODE function occurs in the very last frame in the stack trace,
> then the stack trace is not considered unreliable. This is because there
> is no more unwinding to do. Examples:
>
> - EL0 exception stack traces end in the top level EL0 exception
> handlers.
>
> - All kernel thread stack traces end in ret_from_fork().
>
> arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> ==========================
>
> Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
> arch_stack_walk() except that it returns an error if the stack trace is
> found to be unreliable.
>
> Until all of the reliability checks are in place in
> unwind_check_reliability(), arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used by
> livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
>
> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> ========================
>
> Select this config for arm64. However, make it conditional on
> STACK_VALIDATION. When objtool is enhanced to implement stack
> validation for arm64, STACK_VALIDATION will be defined.
>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v14:
> - Some of the patches from v13 have been added to the branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux.
>
> I have rebased the rest of the patches on top of that.
>
> From Mark Rutland, Mark Brown:
>
> - Add requirements for the three helper functions that init a stack
> trace.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Change the comment for the task field in struct stackframe.
>
> - Hard code the task to current in unwind_init_from_regs(). Add a
> sanity check task == current.
>
> - Rename unwind_init_from_current() to unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> - Remove task argument from unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-By: for:
>
> [PATCH v13 05/11] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> v13:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 05/10] arm64: Copy unwind arguments to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 07/10] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks
> in the unwinder
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 01/10] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame()
> [PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
>
> - For each of the 3 cases of unwind initialization, have a separate
> init function. Call the common init from each of these init
> functions rather than call it separately.
>
> - Only copy the task argument to arch_stack_walk() into
> unwind state. Pass the rest of the arguments as arguments to
> unwind functions.
>
> v12:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within
> walk_stackframe()
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v11 3/5] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to
> other architectures
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> - Add an extra patch at the end to select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> just as a place holder for the review. I have added it and made
> it conditional on STACK_VALIDATION which has not yet been
> implemented.
>
> - Mark had a concern about the code for the check for the final
> frame being repeated in two places. I have now added a new
> field called "final_fp" in struct stackframe which I compute
> once in stacktrace initialization. I have added an explicit
> comment that the stacktrace must terminate at the final_fp.
>
> - Place the implementation of arch_stack_walk_reliable() in a
> separate patch after all the reliability checks have been
> implemented.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Place the removal of the NULL task check in unwind_frame() in
> a separate patch.
>
> - Add a task field to struct stackframe so the task pointer can be
> passed around via the frame instead of as a separate argument. I have
> taken this a step further by copying all of the arguments to
> arch_stack_walk() into struct stackframe so that only that
> struct needs to be passed to unwind functions.
>
> - Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_init() instead of unwind_start().
>
> - Acked-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
>
> - Rename "struct stackframe" to "struct unwind_state".
>
> - Define separate inline functions for initializing the starting
> FP and PC from regs, or caller, or blocked task. Don't merge
> unwind_init() into unwind().
>
> v11:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Peter Zijlstra has submitted patches that make ARCH_STACKWALK
> independent of STACKTRACE. Mark Rutland extracted some of the
> patches from my v10 series and added his own patches and comments,
> rebased it on top of Peter's changes and submitted the series.
>
> So, I have rebased the rest of the patches from v10 on top of
> Mark Rutland's changes.
>
> - Split the renaming of the unwinder functions and annotating them
> with notrace and NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(). Also, there is currently no
> need to annotate unwind_start() as its caller is already annotated
> properly. So, I am removing the annotation patch from the series.
> This can be done separately later if deemed necessary. Similarly,
> I have removed the annotations from unwind_check_reliability() and
> unwind_continue().
>
> From Nobuta Keiya:
>
> - unwind_start() should check for final frame and not mark the
> final frame unreliable.
>
> v9, v10:
> - v9 had a threading problem. So, I resent it as v10.
>
> From me:
>
> - Removed the word "RFC" from the subject line as I believe this
> is mature enough to be a regular patch.
>
> From Mark Brown, Mark Rutland:
>
> - Split the patches into smaller, self-contained ones.
>
> - Always enable STACKTRACE so that arch_stack_walk() is always
> defined.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Update callchain_trace() take the return value of
> perf_callchain_store() into acount.
>
> - Restore get_wchan() behavior to the original code.
>
> - Simplify an if statement in dump_backtrace().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Do not abort the stack trace on the first unreliable frame.
>
>
> v8:
> - Synced to v5.14-rc5.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Make the unwinder loop similar to other architectures.
>
> - Keep details to within the unwinder functions and return a simple
> boolean to the caller.
>
> - Convert some of the current code that contains unwinder logic to
> simply use arch_stack_walk(). I have converted all of them.
>
> - Do not copy sym_code_functions[]. Just place it in rodata for now.
>
> - Have the main loop check for termination conditions rather than
> having unwind_frame() check for them. In other words, let
> unwind_frame() assume that the fp is valid.
>
> - Replace the big comment for SYM_CODE functions with a shorter
> comment.
>
> /*
> * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling
> * conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function
> * cannot be unwound reliably.
> *
> * Note that this includes:
> *
> * - Exception handlers and entry assembly
> * - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
> * - Hypervisor-related assembly
> * - Hibernation-related assembly
> * - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
> * - Kernel relocation assembly
> */
>
> v7:
> The Mailer screwed up the threading on this. So, I have resent this
> same series as version 8 with proper threading to avoid confusion.
> v6:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - The per-frame reliability concept and flag are acceptable. But more
> work is needed to make the per-frame checks more accurate and more
> complete. E.g., some code reorg is being worked on that will help.
>
> I have now removed the frame->reliable flag and deleted the whole
> concept of per-frame status. This is orthogonal to this patch series.
> Instead, I have improved the unwinder to return proper return codes
> so a caller can take appropriate action without needing per-frame
> status.
>
> - Remove the mention of PLTs and update the comment.
>
> I have replaced the comment above the call to __kernel_text_address()
> with the comment suggested by Mark Rutland.
>
> Other comments:
>
> - Other comments on the per-frame stuff are not relevant because
> that approach is not there anymore.
>
> v5:
> From Keiya Nobuta:
>
> - The term blacklist(ed) is not to be used anymore. I have changed it
> to unreliable. So, the function unwinder_blacklisted() has been
> changed to unwinder_is_unreliable().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Add a comment for the "reliable" flag in struct stackframe. The
> reliability attribute is not complete until all the checks are
> in place. Added a comment above struct stackframe.
>
> - Include some of the comments in the cover letter in the actual
> code so that we can compare it with the reliable stack trace
> requirements document for completeness. I have added a comment:
>
> - above unwinder_is_unreliable() that lists the requirements
> that are addressed by the function.
>
> - above the __kernel_text_address() call about all the cases
> the call covers.
>
> v4:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - I was checking the return PC with __kernel_text_address() before
> the Function Graph trace handling. Mark Brown felt that all the
> reliability checks should be performed on the original return PC
> once that is obtained. So, I have moved all the reliability checks
> to after the Function Graph Trace handling code in the unwinder.
> Basically, the unwinder should perform PC translations first (for
> rhe return trampoline for Function Graph Tracing, Kretprobes, etc).
> Then, the reliability checks should be applied to the resulting
> PC.
>
> - Mark said to improve the naming of the new functions so they don't
> collide with existing ones. I have used a prefix "unwinder_" for
> all the new functions.
>
> From Josh Poimboeuf:
>
> - In the error scenarios in the unwinder, the reliable flag in the
> stack frame should be set. Implemented this.
>
> - Some of the other comments are not relevant to the new code as
> I have taken a different approach in the new code. That is why
> I have not made those changes. E.g., Ard wanted me to add the
> "const" keyword to the global section array. That array does not
> exist in v4. Similarly, Mark Brown said to use ARRAY_SIZE() for
> the same array in a for loop.
>
> Other changes:
>
> - Add a new definition for SYM_CODE_END() that adds the address
> range of the function to a special section called
> "sym_code_functions".
>
> - Include the new section under initdata in vmlinux.lds.S.
>
> - Define an early_initcall() to copy the contents of the
> "sym_code_functions" section to an array by the same name.
>
> - Define a function unwinder_blacklisted() that compares a return
> PC against sym_code_sections[]. If there is a match, mark the
> stack trace unreliable. Call this from unwind_frame().
>
> v3:
> - Implemented a sym_code_ranges[] array to contains sections bounds
> for text sections that contain SYM_CODE_*() functions. The unwinder
> checks each return PC against the sections. If it falls in any of
> the sections, the stack trace is marked unreliable.
>
> - Moved SYM_CODE functions from .text and .init.text into a new
> text section called ".code.text". Added this section to
> vmlinux.lds.S and sym_code_ranges[].
>
> - Fixed the logic in the unwinder that handles Function Graph
> Tracer return trampoline.
>
> - Removed all the previous code that handles:
> - ftrace entry code for traced function
> - special_functions[] array that lists individual functions
> - kretprobe_trampoline() special case
>
> v2
> - Removed the terminating entry { 0, 0 } in special_functions[]
> and replaced it with the idiom { /* sentinel */ }.
>
> - Change the ftrace trampoline entry ftrace_graph_call in
> special_functions[] to ftrace_call + 4 and added explanatory
> comments.
>
> - Unnested #ifdefs in special_functions[] for FTRACE.
>
> v1
> - Define a bool field in struct stackframe. This will indicate if
> a stack trace is reliable.
>
> - Implement a special_functions[] array that will be populated
> with special functions in which the stack trace is considered
> unreliable.
>
> - Using kallsyms_lookup(), get the address ranges for the special
> functions and record them.
>
> - Implement an is_reliable_function(pc). This function will check
> if a given return PC falls in any of the special functions. If
> it does, the stack trace is unreliable.
>
> - Implement check_reliability() function that will check if a
> stack frame is reliable. Call is_reliable_function() from
> check_reliability().
>
> - Before a return PC is checked against special_funtions[], it
> must be validates as a proper kernel text address. Call
> __kernel_text_address() from check_reliability().
>
> - Finally, call check_reliability() from unwind_frame() for
> each stack frame.
>
> - Add EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
>
> el1_sync();
> el1_irq();
> el1_error();
> el1_sync_invalid();
> el1_irq_invalid();
> el1_fiq_invalid();
> el1_error_invalid();
>
> - The above functions are currently defined as LOCAL symbols.
> Make them global so that they can be referenced from the
> unwinder code.
>
> - Add FTRACE trampolines to special_functions[]:
>
> ftrace_graph_call()
> ftrace_graph_caller()
> return_to_handler()
>
> - Add the kretprobe trampoline to special functions[]:
>
> kretprobe_trampoline()
>
> Previous versions and discussion
> ================================
>
> v13: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v12: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220103165212.9303-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#m21e86eecb9b8f0831196568f0bf62c3b56f65bf0
> v11: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v10: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/4b3d5552-590c-e6a0-866b-9bc51da7bebf@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v9: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v10 with proper threading.
> v8: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210812190603.25326-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v7: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v8 with proper threading.
> v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210630223356.58714-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210526214917.20099-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210405204313.21346-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210330190955.13707-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
>
> Madhavan T. Venkataraman (7):
> arm64: Split unwind_init()
> arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
> arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
> arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against
> list
> arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 266 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++
> 5 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 5ec58b607fab3cb6f6519103f663731b7bb749f3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
@ 2022-06-02 22:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-06-02 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark.rutland, broonie, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya,
sjitindarsingh, catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel,
live-patching, linux-kernel
Hi Mark Rutland,
Could you please take a look? I have addressed all of the comments so far.
Mark Brown has reviewed all the patches. If you OK them as well, I can request that this patchset be accepted.
If the very last one that selects HAVE_RELIABLE_STACK_TRACE is controversial, I can remove it from the patchset.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Madhavan
On 4/13/22 09:05, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
>
> Split unwind_init()
> ===================
>
> Unwind initialization has 3 cases. Accordingly, define 3 separate init
> functions as follows:
>
> - unwind_init_from_regs()
> - unwind_init_from_current()
> - unwind_init_from_task()
>
> This makes it easier to understand and add specialized code to each case
> in the future.
>
> Copy task argument
> ==================
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop
> ==========================
>
> Redefine the unwinder loop and make it simple and somewhat similar to other
> architectures. Define the following:
>
> while (unwind_continue(&state, consume_entry, cookie))
> unwind_next(&state);
>
> unwind_continue()
> This new function implements checks to determine whether the
> unwind should continue or terminate.
>
> Reliability checks
> ==================
>
> 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 boolean "reliable" in the stackframe. Call
> unwind_check_reliability() for every frame.
>
> 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.
>
> Make unwind() return a boolean to indicate reliability of the stack trace.
>
> SYM_CODE check
> ==============
>
> This is the second reliability check implemented.
>
> SYM_CODE functions do not follow normal calling conventions. They cannot
> be unwound reliably using the frame pointer. Collect the address ranges
> of these functions in a special section called "sym_code_functions".
>
> In unwind_check_reliability(), check the return PC against these ranges. If
> a match is found, then mark the stack trace unreliable.
>
> Last stack frame
> ================
>
> If a SYM_CODE function occurs in the very last frame in the stack trace,
> then the stack trace is not considered unreliable. This is because there
> is no more unwinding to do. Examples:
>
> - EL0 exception stack traces end in the top level EL0 exception
> handlers.
>
> - All kernel thread stack traces end in ret_from_fork().
>
> arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> ==========================
>
> Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() for ARM64. This works like
> arch_stack_walk() except that it returns an error if the stack trace is
> found to be unreliable.
>
> Until all of the reliability checks are in place in
> unwind_check_reliability(), arch_stack_walk_reliable() may not be used by
> livepatch. But it may be used by debug and test code.
>
> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> ========================
>
> Select this config for arm64. However, make it conditional on
> STACK_VALIDATION. When objtool is enhanced to implement stack
> validation for arm64, STACK_VALIDATION will be defined.
>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v14:
> - Some of the patches from v13 have been added to the branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux.
>
> I have rebased the rest of the patches on top of that.
>
> From Mark Rutland, Mark Brown:
>
> - Add requirements for the three helper functions that init a stack
> trace.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Change the comment for the task field in struct stackframe.
>
> - Hard code the task to current in unwind_init_from_regs(). Add a
> sanity check task == current.
>
> - Rename unwind_init_from_current() to unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> - Remove task argument from unwind_init_from_caller().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-By: for:
>
> [PATCH v13 05/11] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> v13:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 05/10] arm64: Copy unwind arguments to unwind_state
> [PATCH v11 07/10] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks
> in the unwinder
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v12 01/10] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame()
> [PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state
>
> - For each of the 3 cases of unwind initialization, have a separate
> init function. Call the common init from each of these init
> functions rather than call it separately.
>
> - Only copy the task argument to arch_stack_walk() into
> unwind state. Pass the rest of the arguments as arguments to
> unwind functions.
>
> v12:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Reviewed-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within
> walk_stackframe()
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
> [PATCH v11 3/5] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to
> other architectures
> [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check
> return PC against list
>
> - Add an extra patch at the end to select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> just as a place holder for the review. I have added it and made
> it conditional on STACK_VALIDATION which has not yet been
> implemented.
>
> - Mark had a concern about the code for the check for the final
> frame being repeated in two places. I have now added a new
> field called "final_fp" in struct stackframe which I compute
> once in stacktrace initialization. I have added an explicit
> comment that the stacktrace must terminate at the final_fp.
>
> - Place the implementation of arch_stack_walk_reliable() in a
> separate patch after all the reliability checks have been
> implemented.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Place the removal of the NULL task check in unwind_frame() in
> a separate patch.
>
> - Add a task field to struct stackframe so the task pointer can be
> passed around via the frame instead of as a separate argument. I have
> taken this a step further by copying all of the arguments to
> arch_stack_walk() into struct stackframe so that only that
> struct needs to be passed to unwind functions.
>
> - Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_init() instead of unwind_start().
>
> - Acked-by for the following:
>
> [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
>
> - Rename "struct stackframe" to "struct unwind_state".
>
> - Define separate inline functions for initializing the starting
> FP and PC from regs, or caller, or blocked task. Don't merge
> unwind_init() into unwind().
>
> v11:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Peter Zijlstra has submitted patches that make ARCH_STACKWALK
> independent of STACKTRACE. Mark Rutland extracted some of the
> patches from my v10 series and added his own patches and comments,
> rebased it on top of Peter's changes and submitted the series.
>
> So, I have rebased the rest of the patches from v10 on top of
> Mark Rutland's changes.
>
> - Split the renaming of the unwinder functions and annotating them
> with notrace and NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(). Also, there is currently no
> need to annotate unwind_start() as its caller is already annotated
> properly. So, I am removing the annotation patch from the series.
> This can be done separately later if deemed necessary. Similarly,
> I have removed the annotations from unwind_check_reliability() and
> unwind_continue().
>
> From Nobuta Keiya:
>
> - unwind_start() should check for final frame and not mark the
> final frame unreliable.
>
> v9, v10:
> - v9 had a threading problem. So, I resent it as v10.
>
> From me:
>
> - Removed the word "RFC" from the subject line as I believe this
> is mature enough to be a regular patch.
>
> From Mark Brown, Mark Rutland:
>
> - Split the patches into smaller, self-contained ones.
>
> - Always enable STACKTRACE so that arch_stack_walk() is always
> defined.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Update callchain_trace() take the return value of
> perf_callchain_store() into acount.
>
> - Restore get_wchan() behavior to the original code.
>
> - Simplify an if statement in dump_backtrace().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Do not abort the stack trace on the first unreliable frame.
>
>
> v8:
> - Synced to v5.14-rc5.
>
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - Make the unwinder loop similar to other architectures.
>
> - Keep details to within the unwinder functions and return a simple
> boolean to the caller.
>
> - Convert some of the current code that contains unwinder logic to
> simply use arch_stack_walk(). I have converted all of them.
>
> - Do not copy sym_code_functions[]. Just place it in rodata for now.
>
> - Have the main loop check for termination conditions rather than
> having unwind_frame() check for them. In other words, let
> unwind_frame() assume that the fp is valid.
>
> - Replace the big comment for SYM_CODE functions with a shorter
> comment.
>
> /*
> * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling
> * conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function
> * cannot be unwound reliably.
> *
> * Note that this includes:
> *
> * - Exception handlers and entry assembly
> * - Trampoline assembly (e.g., ftrace, kprobes)
> * - Hypervisor-related assembly
> * - Hibernation-related assembly
> * - CPU start-stop, suspend-resume assembly
> * - Kernel relocation assembly
> */
>
> v7:
> The Mailer screwed up the threading on this. So, I have resent this
> same series as version 8 with proper threading to avoid confusion.
> v6:
> From Mark Rutland:
>
> - The per-frame reliability concept and flag are acceptable. But more
> work is needed to make the per-frame checks more accurate and more
> complete. E.g., some code reorg is being worked on that will help.
>
> I have now removed the frame->reliable flag and deleted the whole
> concept of per-frame status. This is orthogonal to this patch series.
> Instead, I have improved the unwinder to return proper return codes
> so a caller can take appropriate action without needing per-frame
> status.
>
> - Remove the mention of PLTs and update the comment.
>
> I have replaced the comment above the call to __kernel_text_address()
> with the comment suggested by Mark Rutland.
>
> Other comments:
>
> - Other comments on the per-frame stuff are not relevant because
> that approach is not there anymore.
>
> v5:
> From Keiya Nobuta:
>
> - The term blacklist(ed) is not to be used anymore. I have changed it
> to unreliable. So, the function unwinder_blacklisted() has been
> changed to unwinder_is_unreliable().
>
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - Add a comment for the "reliable" flag in struct stackframe. The
> reliability attribute is not complete until all the checks are
> in place. Added a comment above struct stackframe.
>
> - Include some of the comments in the cover letter in the actual
> code so that we can compare it with the reliable stack trace
> requirements document for completeness. I have added a comment:
>
> - above unwinder_is_unreliable() that lists the requirements
> that are addressed by the function.
>
> - above the __kernel_text_address() call about all the cases
> the call covers.
>
> v4:
> From Mark Brown:
>
> - I was checking the return PC with __kernel_text_address() before
> the Function Graph trace handling. Mark Brown felt that all the
> reliability checks should be performed on the original return PC
> once that is obtained. So, I have moved all the reliability checks
> to after the Function Graph Trace handling code in the unwinder.
> Basically, the unwinder should perform PC translations first (for
> rhe return trampoline for Function Graph Tracing, Kretprobes, etc).
> Then, the reliability checks should be applied to the resulting
> PC.
>
> - Mark said to improve the naming of the new functions so they don't
> collide with existing ones. I have used a prefix "unwinder_" for
> all the new functions.
>
> From Josh Poimboeuf:
>
> - In the error scenarios in the unwinder, the reliable flag in the
> stack frame should be set. Implemented this.
>
> - Some of the other comments are not relevant to the new code as
> I have taken a different approach in the new code. That is why
> I have not made those changes. E.g., Ard wanted me to add the
> "const" keyword to the global section array. That array does not
> exist in v4. Similarly, Mark Brown said to use ARRAY_SIZE() for
> the same array in a for loop.
>
> Other changes:
>
> - Add a new definition for SYM_CODE_END() that adds the address
> range of the function to a special section called
> "sym_code_functions".
>
> - Include the new section under initdata in vmlinux.lds.S.
>
> - Define an early_initcall() to copy the contents of the
> "sym_code_functions" section to an array by the same name.
>
> - Define a function unwinder_blacklisted() that compares a return
> PC against sym_code_sections[]. If there is a match, mark the
> stack trace unreliable. Call this from unwind_frame().
>
> v3:
> - Implemented a sym_code_ranges[] array to contains sections bounds
> for text sections that contain SYM_CODE_*() functions. The unwinder
> checks each return PC against the sections. If it falls in any of
> the sections, the stack trace is marked unreliable.
>
> - Moved SYM_CODE functions from .text and .init.text into a new
> text section called ".code.text". Added this section to
> vmlinux.lds.S and sym_code_ranges[].
>
> - Fixed the logic in the unwinder that handles Function Graph
> Tracer return trampoline.
>
> - Removed all the previous code that handles:
> - ftrace entry code for traced function
> - special_functions[] array that lists individual functions
> - kretprobe_trampoline() special case
>
> v2
> - Removed the terminating entry { 0, 0 } in special_functions[]
> and replaced it with the idiom { /* sentinel */ }.
>
> - Change the ftrace trampoline entry ftrace_graph_call in
> special_functions[] to ftrace_call + 4 and added explanatory
> comments.
>
> - Unnested #ifdefs in special_functions[] for FTRACE.
>
> v1
> - Define a bool field in struct stackframe. This will indicate if
> a stack trace is reliable.
>
> - Implement a special_functions[] array that will be populated
> with special functions in which the stack trace is considered
> unreliable.
>
> - Using kallsyms_lookup(), get the address ranges for the special
> functions and record them.
>
> - Implement an is_reliable_function(pc). This function will check
> if a given return PC falls in any of the special functions. If
> it does, the stack trace is unreliable.
>
> - Implement check_reliability() function that will check if a
> stack frame is reliable. Call is_reliable_function() from
> check_reliability().
>
> - Before a return PC is checked against special_funtions[], it
> must be validates as a proper kernel text address. Call
> __kernel_text_address() from check_reliability().
>
> - Finally, call check_reliability() from unwind_frame() for
> each stack frame.
>
> - Add EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
>
> el1_sync();
> el1_irq();
> el1_error();
> el1_sync_invalid();
> el1_irq_invalid();
> el1_fiq_invalid();
> el1_error_invalid();
>
> - The above functions are currently defined as LOCAL symbols.
> Make them global so that they can be referenced from the
> unwinder code.
>
> - Add FTRACE trampolines to special_functions[]:
>
> ftrace_graph_call()
> ftrace_graph_caller()
> return_to_handler()
>
> - Add the kretprobe trampoline to special functions[]:
>
> kretprobe_trampoline()
>
> Previous versions and discussion
> ================================
>
> v13: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v12: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220103165212.9303-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#m21e86eecb9b8f0831196568f0bf62c3b56f65bf0
> v11: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v10: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/4b3d5552-590c-e6a0-866b-9bc51da7bebf@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t
> v9: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v10 with proper threading.
> v8: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210812190603.25326-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v7: Mailer screwed up the threading. Sent the same as v8 with proper threading.
> v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210630223356.58714-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210526214917.20099-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210405204313.21346-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210330190955.13707-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/
>
> Madhavan T. Venkataraman (7):
> arm64: Split unwind_init()
> arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state
> arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures
> arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
> arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against
> list
> arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable()
> arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h | 11 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 266 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 10 ++
> 5 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 5ec58b607fab3cb6f6519103f663731b7bb749f3
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
2022-04-13 14:05 ` madvenka
@ 2022-06-14 17:48 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-06-14 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: madvenka
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 703 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:21AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
Do you have any plans to resend this based on v5.19-rcN? I know you
were waiting for some more review feedback but everyone's review queues
will most likely have been flushed with the new release so it'll need a
resend. I was half thinking about some related stuff so I went to apply
these but saw there's some small conflicts.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
@ 2022-06-14 17:48 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-06-14 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: madvenka
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 703 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:21AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>
> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>
> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
Do you have any plans to resend this based on v5.19-rcN? I know you
were waiting for some more review feedback but everyone's review queues
will most likely have been flushed with the new release so it'll need a
resend. I was half thinking about some related stuff so I went to apply
these but saw there's some small conflicts.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
2022-06-14 17:48 ` Mark Brown
@ 2022-06-15 19:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-06-15 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
On 6/14/22 12:48, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:21AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>>
>> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>>
>> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
>> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
>
> Do you have any plans to resend this based on v5.19-rcN? I know you
> were waiting for some more review feedback but everyone's review queues
> will most likely have been flushed with the new release so it'll need a
> resend. I was half thinking about some related stuff so I went to apply
> these but saw there's some small conflicts.
I will look at resending based on v5.19-rcN ASAP.
Madhavan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
@ 2022-06-15 19:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman @ 2022-06-15 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: mark.rutland, jpoimboe, ardb, nobuta.keiya, sjitindarsingh,
catalin.marinas, will, jmorris, linux-arm-kernel, live-patching,
linux-kernel
On 6/14/22 12:48, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:05:21AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> I have rebased this patch series on top of this branch:
>>
>> arm64/stacktrace/cleanups
>>
>> in Mark Rutland's fork of Linux. The branch contains a set of patches
>> from Mark and me for reliable stack trace.
>
> Do you have any plans to resend this based on v5.19-rcN? I know you
> were waiting for some more review feedback but everyone's review queues
> will most likely have been flushed with the new release so it'll need a
> resend. I was half thinking about some related stuff so I went to apply
> these but saw there's some small conflicts.
I will look at resending based on v5.19-rcN ASAP.
Madhavan
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread