From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=/SFz=QJ=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,
	SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A04AC282D8
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat,  2 Feb 2019 03:44:24 +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 D175A2086C
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat,  2 Feb 2019 03:44:23 +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="F3oldL6D"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D175A2086C
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 43s0Fx4VqgzDqlg
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat,  2 Feb 2019 14:44:21 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com
 (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::e43; helo=mail-vs1-xe43.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="F3oldL6D"; 
 dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-vs1-xe43.google.com (mail-vs1-xe43.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e43])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43s0DD02XczDqkk
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Sat,  2 Feb 2019 14:42:51 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe43.google.com with SMTP id v205so5499537vsc.3
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 19:42:51 -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=qgcb8hLqRxiJqamjuHuYd03tKr2bYHzyCOgKFdWGaXw=;
 b=F3oldL6DlTy1qPp6Uj12iGzuHnXDmyVOVd1GzwX/E1SZK2k0Li84gdWkivoLPU1Qqx
 IAwUKtVgnaTQwI8Qt+oRlgOHGOarAi67p3vmsDwKpOkhZzGp2Z6H8K1CGy7872Lfi8uY
 dj8yWAacXwhPjL4LoGvZl8LAesKxt/kFVtazcq2r0hj1mw2d3OqNjY0a5IZg/Wq9Kjal
 4HAYGPCGSoMyw4JzjHNww9KqNMCIFwSdEz1tOQuvOKBTWLsTYfZ3chBljUI3BWv0QFa/
 6l6boNrYZVwcL2JdBqOoxwJlMw2TjkyFzhrS5QpVohovsDs2OB6ESmaE6E2AgD+/MiEf
 22Eg==
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=qgcb8hLqRxiJqamjuHuYd03tKr2bYHzyCOgKFdWGaXw=;
 b=eR8m1OcOqqiOGxL155887nQPjq7rXTc4xeErQI09y9OlbiRvRPbvb/nv0CeAINBdXI
 KEwlhYoChYRsYfH1izvOrS1nGJmCLiSHNqzgL1q3vZVZjqhV6ewpCRO65sA8LcHxWL9R
 /zf2bwWom7sJQrSMSYucRCrjtKSJ6kWqQba56iHck6UJeQBuitbHsEUpetCwSwbUJHDW
 p0dQJpTdSYgyR7Yx/O9a3BC9abBUnsldXpqc9EKitCdbrGL5I6yOQh8AflEd+IAoCjIO
 30G0kjuBi0segp4LjfpIsvV+qq8IvS7TqY2WjTpIA+94IPiMFFrsDY/pg/ATupwdMP2C
 k7XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeRWusToqUAtTUbTZWvdIr5pfYicJ5cKUfFXY3PkqKoT8OornGr
 2Yc/qV6JIxSMHj2N5eW1igbVLGeWQiyC8joa5DY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4NgKZEKqaVIKM/IvB/NOoYSAslViWlpWdovWtfV7XV9cdQP+YfcE8H4BUmBCQVfPR0OL6R0CEI1DI3BWpD3NY=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:7614:: with SMTP id r20mr17715027vsc.89.1549078967524; 
 Fri, 01 Feb 2019 19:42:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190122155724.27557-1-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <20190122155724.27557-2-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> <20190202011455.GN26056@350D>
In-Reply-To: <20190202011455.GN26056@350D>
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 14:42:35 +1100
Message-ID: <CAKTCnzmWCxPRSBdc8T_phtmoBftNZLV3BdFp3Dee5Lc8VGzFYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/64s: Clear on-stack exception marker upon
 exception return
To: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
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: 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 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

Balbir