live-patching.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:00:32 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4c6a5b8e-2eeb-67d5-d6fa-5b5933f156e5@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211015025847.17694-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

Hi Mark Rutland, Mark Brown,

Sorry for the long delay in addressing your comments.
I was out sick for a month.

Please take a look when you get a chance.

I have removed the word "RFC" as I believe this is mature enough to be
a regular patch series at this point.

Thanks.

Madhavan

On 10/14/21 9:58 PM, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
> 
> Make all stack walking functions use arch_stack_walk()
> ======================================================
> 
> Currently, there are multiple functions in ARM64 code that walk the
> stack using start_backtrace() and unwind_frame() or start_backtrace()
> and walk_stackframe(). Convert all of them to use arch_stack_walk().
> This makes maintenance easier.
> 
> This means that arch_stack_walk() needs to be always defined. So,
> select CONFIG_STACKTRACE in the ARM64 Kconfig file.
> 
> Consolidate the unwinder
> ========================
> 
> Currently, start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe() are called separately.
> There is no need to do that. Move the call to start_backtrace() into
> walk_stackframe() so that walk_stackframe() is the only unwinder function
> a consumer needs to call.
> 
> The consumers of walk_stackframe() are arch_stack_walk() and
> arch_stack_walk_reliable().
> 
> Rename unwinder functions
> =========================
> 
> Rename unwinder functions to unwind*() similar to other architectures
> for naming consistency.
> 
> 	start_backtrace() ==> unwind_start()
> 	unwind_frame()    ==> unwind_next()
> 	walk_stackframe() ==> unwind()
> 
> Annotate unwinder functions
> ===========================
> 
> Annotate all of the unwind_*() functions with notrace so they cannot be
> ftraced and NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() so they cannot be kprobed. Ftrace and Kprobe
> code can call the unwinder.
> 
> Redefine the unwinder loop
> ==========================
> 
> Redefine the unwinder loop and make it similar to other architectures.
> Define the following:
> 
> 	unwind_start(&frame, fp, pc);
> 	while (unwind_continue(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie))
> 		unwind_next(task, &frame);
> 
> unwind_continue()
> 	This new function implements checks to determine whether the
> 	unwind should continue or terminate.
> 
> unwind_next()
> 	Same as the original unwind_frame() except:
> 
> 	- the stack trace termination check has been moved from here to
> 	  unwind_continue(). So, unwind_next() assumes that the fp is valid.
> 
> 	- unwind_frame() used to return an error value. unwind_next() only
> 	  sets an internal flag "failed" to indicate that an error was
> 	  encountered. This flag is checked by unwind_continue().
> 
> 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.
> 
> unwind_check_reliability() will be called for every frame. That is, in
> unwind_start() as well as unwind_next().
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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().
> ---
> Changelog:
> 
> v9:
> 	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
> ================================
> 
> 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 (11):
>   arm64: Select STACKTRACE in arch/arm64/Kconfig
>   arm64: Make perf_callchain_kernel() use arch_stack_walk()
>   arm64: Make get_wchan() use arch_stack_walk()
>   arm64: Make return_address() use arch_stack_walk()
>   arm64: Make dump_stacktrace() use arch_stack_walk()
>   arm64: Make profile_pc() use arch_stack_walk()
>   arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe()
>   arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and
>     kprobed
>   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
> 
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                  |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h    |  12 ++
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/sections.h   |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h |  12 +-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_callchain.c  |   8 +-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/process.c         |  38 ++--
>  arch/arm64/kernel/return_address.c  |   6 +-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c      | 274 +++++++++++++++++++---------
>  arch/arm64/kernel/time.c            |  22 ++-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S     |  10 +
>  10 files changed, 257 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> base-commit: 36a21d51725af2ce0700c6ebcb6b9594aac658a6
> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2021-10-15 17:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <c05ce30dcc9be1bd6b5e24a2ca8fe1d66246980b>
2021-10-15  2:34 ` [PATCH v9 " madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 01/11] arm64: Select STACKTRACE in arch/arm64/Kconfig madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 10/11] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 11/11] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 02/11] arm64: Make perf_callchain_kernel() use arch_stack_walk() madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 03/11] arm64: Make get_wchan() " madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 04/11] arm64: Make return_address() " madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 05/11] arm64: Make dump_stacktrace() " madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 06/11] arm64: Make profile_pc() " madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 07/11] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe() madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 08/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and kprobed madvenka
2021-10-15  2:34   ` [PATCH v9 09/11] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2021-10-15  2:53   ` [PATCH v9 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58 ` [PATCH v10 " madvenka
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 01/11] arm64: Select STACKTRACE in arch/arm64/Kconfig madvenka
2021-10-15 18:28     ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:28       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-22 18:02     ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-12 17:44       ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-14 16:15         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 02/11] arm64: Make perf_callchain_kernel() use arch_stack_walk() madvenka
2021-10-20 14:59     ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:28       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-22 18:11     ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-23 12:49       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 03/11] arm64: Make get_wchan() " madvenka
2021-10-20 16:10     ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:30       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 04/11] arm64: Make return_address() " madvenka
2021-10-20 15:03     ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:29       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-22 18:51     ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-23 12:51       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 05/11] arm64: Make dump_stacktrace() " madvenka
2021-10-25 16:49     ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-26 12:05       ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 16:09         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 06/11] arm64: Make profile_pc() " madvenka
2021-10-25  2:18     ` nobuta.keiya
2021-10-27 16:10       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-27 13:32     ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 16:15       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 07/11] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe() madvenka
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 08/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and kprobed madvenka
2021-10-27 17:53     ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 20:07       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 09/11] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 10/11] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-11-04 12:39     ` nobuta.keiya
2021-11-10  3:13       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15  2:58   ` [PATCH v10 11/11] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-10-15 17:00   ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4c6a5b8e-2eeb-67d5-d6fa-5b5933f156e5@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
    --cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v10 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).