From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: Implement infrastructure for stack trace reliability checks
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:30:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eb905f70-a963-6257-c597-89e008675539@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69b6924b-88f6-6c40-7b18-8cdf15d92bd1@linux.microsoft.com>
On 4/8/21 2:30 PM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>
>
> On 4/8/21 12:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:43:10PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>>
>>> These checks will involve checking the return PC to see if it falls inside
>>> any special functions where the stack trace is considered unreliable.
>>> Implement the infrastructure needed for this.
>>
>> Following up again based on an off-list discussion with Mark Rutland:
>> while I think this is a reasonable implementation for specifically
>> listing functions that cause problems we could make life easier for
>> ourselves by instead using annotations at the call sites to put things
>> into sections which indicate that they're unsafe for unwinding, we can
>> then check for any address in one of those sections (or possibly do the
>> reverse and check for any address in a section we specifically know is
>> safe) rather than having to enumerate problematic functions in the
>> unwinder. This also has the advantage of not having a list that's
>> separate to the functions themselves so it's less likely that the
>> unwinder will get out of sync with the rest of the code as things evolve.
>>
>> We already have SYM_CODE_START() annotations in the code for assembly
>> functions that aren't using the standard calling convention which should
>> help a lot here, we could add a variant of that for things that we know
>> are safe on stacks (like those we expect to find at the bottom of
>> stacks).
>>
>
> As I already mentioned before, I like the idea of sections. The only reason that I did
> not try it was that I have to address FTRACE trampolines and the kretprobe_trampoline
> (and optprobes in the future).
>
> I have the following options:
>
> 1. Create a common section (I will have to come up with an appropriate name) and put
> all such functions in that one section.
>
> 2. Create one section for each logical type (exception section, ftrace section and
> kprobe section) or some such.
>
For now, I will start with idea 2. I will create a special section for each class of
functions (EL1 exception handlers, FTRACE trampolines, KPROBE trampolines). Instead of a
special functions array, I will implement a special_sections array. The rest of the code
should just fall into place.
Let me know if you prefer something different.
Thanks.
Madhavan
> 3. Use the section idea only for the el1 exceptions. For the others use the current
> special_functions[] approach.
>
> Which one do you and Mark Rutland prefer? Or, is there another choice?
>
> Madhavan
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-08 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <705993ccb34a611c75cdae0a8cb1b40f9b218ebd>
2021-04-05 20:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2021-04-05 20:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: Implement infrastructure for " madvenka
2021-04-08 15:15 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-08 17:17 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-08 19:30 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-08 23:30 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2021-04-09 11:57 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-05 20:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: Mark a stack trace unreliable if an EL1 exception frame is detected madvenka
2021-04-05 20:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable madvenka
2021-04-08 16:58 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-08 19:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 11:31 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-09 14:02 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 12:27 ` Mark Rutland
2021-04-09 17:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-05 20:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Mark stack trace as unreliable if kretprobed functions are present madvenka
2021-04-09 12:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks Mark Rutland
2021-04-09 17:16 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 21:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-09 22:05 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 22:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-09 22:53 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-11 17:54 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-12 16:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-13 22:53 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-14 12:24 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-12 17:36 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-12 19:55 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-13 11:02 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-14 10:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-14 12:35 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-16 14:43 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-16 15:36 ` Mark Brown
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=eb905f70-a963-6257-c597-89e008675539@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jthierry@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=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is 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).