From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=q2Dt=QN=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,
	SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7689DC169C4
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 08:47:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B048B2081B
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 08:47:38 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IU6RZszG"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B048B2081B
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43vZp02vB9zDqQd
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 19:47:36 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com
 (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::e41; helo=mail-vs1-xe41.google.com;
 envelope-from=bsingharora@gmail.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key;
 unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IU6RZszG"; 
 dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-vs1-xe41.google.com (mail-vs1-xe41.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e41])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43vZmF4KnzzDqMG
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed,  6 Feb 2019 19:46:05 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe41.google.com with SMTP id p74so3937473vsc.0
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:46:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=KMz/FfJ8citTyocOVR5b7eAlmHncYAbXwxZkfzhjJxo=;
 b=IU6RZszGpt+rwJ6J0ZjjtdGmS3AeOhxZAdFbTK6tm4DGXGqoLg3cwjNfUkiPg45N6O
 mCSUl0yz2i1zCztmwGT8ylNXVXPD6IPqq/8cC6GQ1+gdmEDWmAm6DNKijk4qUeHRKQoh
 1PIlODCO1MD8K3ocGBJukXFu2l/8PzRIGfD82qL0jmusi7t04fF5dQY2hMdxWKvyChH6
 rgC/V4O+aaTBWpihdVcJSWL2iBf8sOAKxr5gfvbgdeMmLjOfFlsqBXMFkFpGKq486Erx
 3SZJyzImH5dtA6ZIX2FHUX/GG23BjhRVmGiPc1Hvr+58rPr81Giw3jpSkvBD0ZhdJE1P
 aUNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=KMz/FfJ8citTyocOVR5b7eAlmHncYAbXwxZkfzhjJxo=;
 b=Eh/Md2DaR95D1vBbhH5VHiFZGivWabxOwydywIlNEa4W530JTSWg+3RzeZ/Ghq23P4
 SRC+xWDpknS5dquEI0QeKDky0aLiu0jQrQmcK0G5jvJ7eY0jpA3K38jqZ6fKjRfsxVWg
 GM9yIONHOtzPEXj9uZWy7fid2Z+TJmohJPnKXaTXJCq8KZZeTEE5Ae961csa88ITLfKe
 iCifOMF1bJUwdNcT5xByAv1BI1Bb4NYuXY6bWyPgNW5kWQ+dtVzNi50ZT+D5mtUZPedF
 E0BBp/oSUmVl50rXBqCsPQoz2Rqls2x9nR91tJTn0Q/tG9mRd3uFhfflDm+yce9EYaGn
 599g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaTD6TgBG2dFPy12D3dPQiOGlZrOMQcqi+xE1jMnwgEtqUVV3mW
 2bXknjIkeCwi4y47KTqEkjFR/wWwBj/VIJQWDfY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaAk3aSqSa6NDWDV1qK+6WUWCp9O1gZBt5ShXdPm3BZ2/zppBFbV4Ut/djyEYWros1oN2la8Bwet/D3e2C9XKo=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:a944:: with SMTP id s65mr3757403vse.108.1549442762656; 
 Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:46:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190122155724.27557-1-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <20190122155724.27557-2-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> <20190202011455.GN26056@350D>
 <CAKTCnzmWCxPRSBdc8T_phtmoBftNZLV3BdFp3Dee5Lc8VGzFYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87bm3qmqak.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <CAKTCnznr9MoL=eZsNWyGkKYdx7UbLQr86VL=xmC8h2ig8Sw+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8736p1msov.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
In-Reply-To: <8736p1msov.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 19:45:50 +1100
Message-ID: <CAKTCnzm0a2kbeEVxzrvzURO89DO9jWDnUMkNcwVGedmoxow3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/64s: Clear on-stack exception marker upon
 exception return
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>,
 Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
 live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
 "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC \(32-BIT AND 64-BIT\)"
 <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:24 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> >> Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:14 PM Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:57:21AM -0500, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> >> > From: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The ppc64 specific implementation of the reliable stacktracer,
> >> >> > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(), bails out and reports an "unreliable
> >> >> > trace" whenever it finds an exception frame on the stack. Stack frames
> >> >> > are classified as exception frames if the STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER magic,
> >> >> > as written by exception prologues, is found at a particular location.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, as observed by Joe Lawrence, it is possible in practice that
> >> >> > non-exception stack frames can alias with prior exception frames and thus,
> >> >> > that the reliable stacktracer can find a stale STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER on
> >> >> > the stack. It in turn falsely reports an unreliable stacktrace and blocks
> >> >> > any live patching transition to finish. Said condition lasts until the
> >> >> > stack frame is overwritten/initialized by function call or other means.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In principle, we could mitigate this by making the exception frame
> >> >> > classification condition in save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() stronger:
> >> >> > in addition to testing for STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER, we could also take into
> >> >> > account that for all exceptions executing on the kernel stack
> >> >> > - their stack frames's backlink pointers always match what is saved
> >> >> >   in their pt_regs instance's ->gpr[1] slot and that
> >> >> > - their exception frame size equals STACK_INT_FRAME_SIZE, a value
> >> >> >   uncommonly large for non-exception frames.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, while these are currently true, relying on them would make the
> >> >> > reliable stacktrace implementation more sensitive towards future changes in
> >> >> > the exception entry code. Note that false negatives, i.e. not detecting
> >> >> > exception frames, would silently break the live patching consistency model.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Furthermore, certain other places (diagnostic stacktraces, perf, xmon)
> >> >> > rely on STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER as well.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Make the exception exit code clear the on-stack STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER
> >> >> > for those exceptions running on the "normal" kernel stack and returning
> >> >> > to kernelspace: because the topmost frame is ignored by the reliable stack
> >> >> > tracer anyway, returns to userspace don't need to take care of clearing
> >> >> > the marker.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Furthermore, as I don't have the ability to test this on Book 3E or
> >> >> > 32 bits, limit the change to Book 3S and 64 bits.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Finally, make the HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Kconfig option depend on
> >> >> > PPC_BOOK3S_64 for documentation purposes. Before this patch, it depended
> >> >> > on PPC64 && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN and because CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN implies
> >> >> > PPC_BOOK3S_64, there's no functional change here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Fixes: df78d3f61480 ("powerpc/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing for the consistency model")
> >> >> > Reported-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >  arch/powerpc/Kconfig           | 2 +-
> >> >> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 7 +++++++
> >> >> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> >> > index 2890d36eb531..73bf87b1d274 100644
> >> >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> >> > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ config PPC
> >> >> >       select HAVE_PERF_USER_STACK_DUMP
> >> >> >       select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE              if SMP
> >> >> >       select HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API
> >> >> > -     select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE         if PPC64 && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> >> >> > +     select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE         if PPC_BOOK3S_64 && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> >> >> >       select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
> >> >> >       select HAVE_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
> >> >> >       select HAVE_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
> >> >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> >> > index 435927f549c4..a2c168b395d2 100644
> >> >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> >> > @@ -1002,6 +1002,13 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR)
> >> >> >       ld      r2,_NIP(r1)
> >> >> >       mtspr   SPRN_SRR0,r2
> >> >> >
> >> >> > +     /*
> >> >> > +      * Leaving a stale exception_marker on the stack can confuse
> >> >> > +      * the reliable stack unwinder later on. Clear it.
> >> >> > +      */
> >> >> > +     li      r2,0
> >> >> > +     std     r2,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD-16(r1)
> >> >> > +
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you please double check, r4 is already 0 at this point
> >> >> IIUC. So the change might be a simple
> >> >>
> >> >> std r4,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD-16(r1)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > r4 is not 0, sorry for the noise
> >>
> >> Isn't it?
> >
> > It is, I seem to be reading the wrong bits and confused myself, had to
> > re-read mtmsrd to ensure it does not modify RS, just MSR. So I guess
> > we could reuse r4.
>
> Yeah it's a bit hard to follow now that we have the split exit paths for
> user vs kernel. r4 does get used on the return to userspace case, by
> ACCOUNT_CPU_USER_EXIT(), but for the return to kernel it's still got
> zero in it.
>
> > Should I send a patch on top of this? I have limited testing
> > infrastructure at the moment, I could use qemu
>
> I'm not sure. It's a bit fragile relying on the r4 value being zero, it
> would be easy to accidentally reuse r4. Though it actually wouldn't
> matter as long as r4 never has "regshere" in it.
>

Yep, r4 will eventually get reloaded right below, so unless reuses it
as a scratch register, shouldn't matter

> In fact we could store any random value there, it just needs to not be
> the exception marker. eg. we could just stick the SRR0 value in there,
> that should never alias with "regshere".
>
> But I think maybe we're over thinking it, the cost of the li is pretty
> minimal compared to everything else going on here, and this is only on
> the return to kernel case, which is arguably not a super hot path.

Agreed

Cheers
Balbir Singh.