[PATCH 0/2]: x86/traps: improve show_trace()'s top-of-stack handling

[PATCH 0/2]: x86/traps: improve show_trace()'s top-of-stack handling

[Jan Beulich]

1: guard top-of-stack reads
2: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

The issue patch 2 fixes (a curious lack of an intermediate call stack
entry) was observed in practice; patch 1 is a result of me just looking
at the code (and if I have missed some aspect of why this isn't a
problem in reality, that patch could be easily dropped).

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/2]: x86/traps: improve show_trace()'s top-of-stack handling

[Jan Beulich]

1: guard top-of-stack reads
2: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

The issue patch 2 fixes (a curious lack of an intermediate call stack
entry) was observed in practice; patch 1 is a result of me just looking
at the code (and if I have missed some aspect of why this isn't a
problem in reality, that patch could be easily dropped).

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Jan Beulich]

Nothing (afaics) guarantees that the original frame's stack pointer
points at readable memory. Avoid a (likely nested) crash by attaching
exception recovery to the read (making it a single read at the same
time). Don't even invoke _show_trace() in case of a non-readable top
slot.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -484,16 +484,23 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
 
 static void show_trace(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
 {
-    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs);
+    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs), tos = 0;
 
     printk("Xen call trace:\n");
 
+    asm ( "1: mov %2,%0; 2:\n"
+          ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n"
+          "3: xor %k1,%k1; jmp 2b\n"
+          ".popsection\n"
+          _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b)
+          : "+r" (tos), "+r" (sp) : "m" (*sp) );
+
     /*
      * If RIP looks sensible, or the top of the stack doesn't, print RIP at
      * the top of the stack trace.
      */
     if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
-         !is_active_kernel_text(*sp) )
+         !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
         printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
     /*
      * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
@@ -501,12 +508,15 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
      * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
      * it again.
      */
-    else
+    else if ( sp )
     {
-        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(*sp), _p(*sp));
+        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
         sp++;
     }
 
+    if ( !sp )
+        return;
+
     _show_trace((unsigned long)sp, regs->rbp);
 
     printk("\n");





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Jan Beulich]

Nothing (afaics) guarantees that the original frame's stack pointer
points at readable memory. Avoid a (likely nested) crash by attaching
exception recovery to the read (making it a single read at the same
time). Don't even invoke _show_trace() in case of a non-readable top
slot.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -484,16 +484,23 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
 
 static void show_trace(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
 {
-    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs);
+    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs), tos = 0;
 
     printk("Xen call trace:\n");
 
+    asm ( "1: mov %2,%0; 2:\n"
+          ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n"
+          "3: xor %k1,%k1; jmp 2b\n"
+          ".popsection\n"
+          _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b)
+          : "+r" (tos), "+r" (sp) : "m" (*sp) );
+
     /*
      * If RIP looks sensible, or the top of the stack doesn't, print RIP at
      * the top of the stack trace.
      */
     if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
-         !is_active_kernel_text(*sp) )
+         !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
         printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
     /*
      * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
@@ -501,12 +508,15 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
      * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
      * it again.
      */
-    else
+    else if ( sp )
     {
-        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(*sp), _p(*sp));
+        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
         sp++;
     }
 
+    if ( !sp )
+        return;
+
     _show_trace((unsigned long)sp, regs->rbp);
 
     printk("\n");





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Andrew Cooper]

On 31/05/2019 10:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Nothing (afaics) guarantees that the original frame's stack pointer
> points at readable memory.

Having hit just the scenario described here, the answer is "nothing".

>  Avoid a (likely nested) crash by attaching
> exception recovery to the read (making it a single read at the same
> time). Don't even invoke _show_trace() in case of a non-readable top
> slot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> @@ -484,16 +484,23 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
>  
>  static void show_trace(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>  {
> -    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs);
> +    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs), tos = 0;
>  
>      printk("Xen call trace:\n");
>  

/* Probe the stack for readability. */

> +    asm ( "1: mov %2,%0; 2:\n"
> +          ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n"
> +          "3: xor %k1,%k1; jmp 2b\n"

Can we use some named parameters, so the asm can actually be followed?

Also, you can't do this by zeroing sp, because it aliases with "sp was
at zero and readable".  A better option would be to get an explicit
fault boolean out of the asm.

> +          ".popsection\n"
> +          _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b)
> +          : "+r" (tos), "+r" (sp) : "m" (*sp) );
> +
>      /*
>       * If RIP looks sensible, or the top of the stack doesn't, print RIP at
>       * the top of the stack trace.
>       */
>      if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
> -         !is_active_kernel_text(*sp) )
> +         !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
>          printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
>      /*
>       * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
> @@ -501,12 +508,15 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
>       * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
>       * it again.
>       */
> -    else
> +    else if ( sp )
>      {
> -        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(*sp), _p(*sp));
> +        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
>          sp++;
>      }
>  
> +    if ( !sp )
> +        return;

Along with the alias mentioned above, this also has a boundary case when
sp is -8, due to the sp++ above.

It would probably be better to fit an

else if ( fault )
{
    printk("   [Fault on access]\n");
    return;
}

into the middle of the existing if/else.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 07.06.19 at 19:51, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 10:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> @@ -484,16 +484,23 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
>>  
>>  static void show_trace(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>  {
>> -    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs);
>> +    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs), tos = 0;
>>  
>>      printk("Xen call trace:\n");
>>  
> 
> /* Probe the stack for readability. */

That's not an appropriate comment for this code fragment, at least
not with my (non-native) understanding of "probe". To me the verb
does not include reading actual data, yet that's what we do here.
If anything is needed at all, then maybe "Guarded read of the stack
top"?

>> +    asm ( "1: mov %2,%0; 2:\n"
>> +          ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n"
>> +          "3: xor %k1,%k1; jmp 2b\n"
> 
> Can we use some named parameters, so the asm can actually be followed?

Sure. I did consider doing so, but then thought the one here would
be simple enough.

> Also, you can't do this by zeroing sp, because it aliases with "sp was
> at zero and readable".  A better option would be to get an explicit
> fault boolean out of the asm.

Hmm, this was actually deliberate: A zero %rsp is a clear sign of the
stack being bad, and better not getting dumped from.

>> @@ -501,12 +508,15 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
>>       * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
>>       * it again.
>>       */
>> -    else
>> +    else if ( sp )
>>      {
>> -        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(*sp), _p(*sp));
>> +        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
>>          sp++;
>>      }
>>  
>> +    if ( !sp )
>> +        return;
> 
> Along with the alias mentioned above, this also has a boundary case when
> sp is -8, due to the sp++ above.

Hmm, yes, until the next patch.

> It would probably be better to fit an
> 
> else if ( fault )
> {
>     printk("   [Fault on access]\n");
>     return;
> }
> 
> into the middle of the existing if/else.

Well, okay, I'll add such a separate boolean then. I wanted to avoid
further hampering readability of the asm()...

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Jan Beulich]

Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
often for relatively simple leaf functions. (To give a specific example,
the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)

Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.

Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
be part of the call stack.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
     {
         addr = *stack++;
         if ( is_active_kernel_text(addr) )
-            printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(addr), _p(addr));
+            printk("   [<%p>] ? %pS\n", _p(addr), _p(addr));
     }
 }
 
@@ -502,21 +502,25 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
     if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
          !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
         printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
+
+    if ( !sp )
+        return;
+
     /*
-     * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
-     * followed a wild function pointer? Lets assume the top of the stack is a
+     * If RIP looks bad or the top of the stack looks good, log the top of
+     * stack as well.  Perhaps we followed a wild function pointer, or we're
+     * in a function without frame pointer, or in a function prologue before
+     * the frame pointer gets set up? Lets assume the top of the stack is a
      * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
      * it again.
      */
-    else if ( sp )
+    if ( !is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
+         is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
     {
-        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
+        printk("   [<%p>] ? %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
         sp++;
     }
 
-    if ( !sp )
-        return;
-
     _show_trace((unsigned long)sp, regs->rbp);
 
     printk("\n");





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Jan Beulich]

Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
often for relatively simple leaf functions. (To give a specific example,
the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)

Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.

Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
be part of the call stack.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
     {
         addr = *stack++;
         if ( is_active_kernel_text(addr) )
-            printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(addr), _p(addr));
+            printk("   [<%p>] ? %pS\n", _p(addr), _p(addr));
     }
 }
 
@@ -502,21 +502,25 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
     if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
          !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
         printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
+
+    if ( !sp )
+        return;
+
     /*
-     * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
-     * followed a wild function pointer? Lets assume the top of the stack is a
+     * If RIP looks bad or the top of the stack looks good, log the top of
+     * stack as well.  Perhaps we followed a wild function pointer, or we're
+     * in a function without frame pointer, or in a function prologue before
+     * the frame pointer gets set up? Lets assume the top of the stack is a
      * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
      * it again.
      */
-    else if ( sp )
+    if ( !is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
+         is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
     {
-        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
+        printk("   [<%p>] ? %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
         sp++;
     }
 
-    if ( !sp )
-        return;
-
     _show_trace((unsigned long)sp, regs->rbp);
 
     printk("\n");





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Andrew Cooper]

On 31/05/2019 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
> often for relatively simple leaf functions. (To give a specific example,
> the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
> Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
> get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
> may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)
>
> Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.
>
> Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
> question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
> be part of the call stack.

I very specifically didn't do that before, because it give the false
impression that when a question mark isn't present, the logging line is
accurate.

This is not true for %rbp corruption, asm blocks which don't respect the
frame pointer ABI (arguably also corruption), any fault raised from
within an EFI call.

Porting Xen to use objtool would be a definite improvement, but cannot
guard against unexpected %rbp corruption and the EFI case.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 07.06.19 at 20:01, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
>> often for relatively simple leaf functions. (To give a specific example,
>> the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
>> Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
>> get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
>> may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)
>>
>> Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.
>>
>> Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
>> question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
>> be part of the call stack.
> 
> I very specifically didn't do that before, because it give the false
> impression that when a question mark isn't present, the logging line is
> accurate.
> 
> This is not true for %rbp corruption, asm blocks which don't respect the
> frame pointer ABI (arguably also corruption), any fault raised from
> within an EFI call.

So what do you suggest instead? Somehow we should mark slots
that are more guesses than actually derived.

> Porting Xen to use objtool would be a definite improvement, but cannot
> guard against unexpected %rbp corruption and the EFI case.

I'm not sure about "definite", but I think I see your point. Personally
I continue to believe that programmer (assembly code) and compiler
(C code) attached unwind annotations are the better model.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2]: x86/traps: improve show_trace()'s top-of-stack handling

[Jan Beulich]

1: guard top-of-stack reads
2: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

The issue patch 2 fixes (a curious lack of an intermediate call stack
entry) was observed in practice; patch 1 is a result of me just looking
at the code.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Jan Beulich]

Nothing (afaics) guarantees that the original frame's stack pointer
points at readable memory. Avoid a (likely nested) crash by attaching
exception recovery to the read (making it a single read at the same
time). Don't even invoke _show_trace() in case of a non-readable top
slot.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v2: Name asm() arguments. Use explicit "fault" variable.

--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -484,17 +484,31 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
 
 static void show_trace(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
 {
-    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs);
+    unsigned long *sp = ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs), tos = 0;
+    bool fault = false;
 
     printk("Xen call trace:\n");
 
+    /* Guarded read of the stack top. */
+    asm ( "1: mov %[data], %[tos]; 2:\n"
+          ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n"
+          "3: movb $1, %[fault]; jmp 2b\n"
+          ".popsection\n"
+          _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b)
+          : [tos] "+r" (tos), [fault] "+qm" (fault) : [data] "m" (*sp) );
+
     /*
      * If RIP looks sensible, or the top of the stack doesn't, print RIP at
      * the top of the stack trace.
      */
     if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
-         !is_active_kernel_text(*sp) )
+         !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
         printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
+    else if ( fault )
+    {
+        printk("   [Fault on access]\n");
+        return;
+    }
     /*
      * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
      * followed a wild function pointer? Lets assume the top of the stack is a
@@ -503,7 +517,7 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
      */
     else
     {
-        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(*sp), _p(*sp));
+        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
         sp++;
     }
 





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Andrew Cooper]

On 17/06/2019 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Nothing (afaics) guarantees that the original frame's stack pointer

I'd drop the (afaics), because the answer really is nothing.

> points at readable memory. Avoid a (likely nested) crash by attaching
> exception recovery to the read (making it a single read at the same
> time). Don't even invoke _show_trace() in case of a non-readable top
> slot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/traps: guard top-of-stack reads

[Jan Beulich]

On 02.07.2019 19:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/06/2019 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Nothing (afaics) guarantees that the original frame's stack pointer
> 
> I'd drop the (afaics), because the answer really is nothing.

Well, okay, done.

>> points at readable memory. Avoid a (likely nested) crash by attaching
>> exception recovery to the read (making it a single read at the same
>> time). Don't even invoke _show_trace() in case of a non-readable top
>> slot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

Thanks. FTR - there's a quirk in here that I've left in place
deliberately (should probably have mentioned it in a post-commit-
message remark) which gets resolved by patch 2, and hence I'm
likely going to wait with committing this such that both can go in
at the same time. The issue is with the if/else-if/else chain here,
which patch 2 makes into a series of plain if()-s. Handling this
correctly right here would imo mean folding together both patches;
anything else would at best result in clumsy intermediate code.
Despite this quirk the change here is an improvement, just not as
much of one as would be desirable.

Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Jan Beulich]

Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
often for relatively simple leaf functions. (To give a specific example,
the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)

Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.

Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
be part of the call stack.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v2: Re-base over changes to earlier patch.

--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static void _show_trace(unsigned long sp
     {
         addr = *stack++;
         if ( is_active_kernel_text(addr) )
-            printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(addr), _p(addr));
+            printk("   [<%p>] ? %pS\n", _p(addr), _p(addr));
     }
 }
 
@@ -504,20 +504,25 @@ static void show_trace(const struct cpu_
     if ( is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
          !is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
         printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(regs->rip), _p(regs->rip));
-    else if ( fault )
+
+    if ( fault )
     {
         printk("   [Fault on access]\n");
         return;
     }
+
     /*
-     * Else RIP looks bad but the top of the stack looks good.  Perhaps we
-     * followed a wild function pointer? Lets assume the top of the stack is a
+     * If RIP looks bad or the top of the stack looks good, log the top of
+     * stack as well.  Perhaps we followed a wild function pointer, or we're
+     * in a function without frame pointer, or in a function prologue before
+     * the frame pointer gets set up? Let's assume the top of the stack is a
      * return address; print it and skip past so _show_trace() doesn't print
      * it again.
      */
-    else
+    if ( !is_active_kernel_text(regs->rip) ||
+         is_active_kernel_text(tos) )
     {
-        printk("   [<%p>] %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
+        printk("   [<%p>] ? %pS\n", _p(tos), _p(tos));
         sp++;
     }
 





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Andrew Cooper]

On 17/06/2019 09:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
> often for relatively simple leaf functions.

Actually, the problem is more widespread than this.  For every function,
there is a non-zero quantity of time between the function starting and
the frame pointer being set up.

However, half of this time is spent with the old %rbp on the top of the
stack, so won't benefit from these changes.

> (To give a specific example,
> the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
> Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
> get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
> may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)
>
> Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.

This far, I'm happy with.

> Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
> question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
> be part of the call stack.

I'm still opposed to this.  The introduction of ? does more harm than
good IMO, because it simply can't be trusted.

Stack traces are not guaranteed-accurate, even with frame pointers
enabled.  The only thing we can say for certain in any trace is where
%rip points.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Jan Beulich]

On 03.07.2019 12:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/06/2019 09:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
>> often for relatively simple leaf functions.
> 
> Actually, the problem is more widespread than this.  For every function,
> there is a non-zero quantity of time between the function starting and
> the frame pointer being set up.
> 
> However, half of this time is spent with the old %rbp on the top of the
> stack, so won't benefit from these changes.

I think the compiler typically pairs push %rbp and mov %rsp, %rbp,
but this pair may not sit at the beginning of the function. And it's
that other code that's prone to crash. The push %rbp may also fault
(most notably due to stack overrun), but that would then still have
the top of stack covered by the change here. The mov %rsp, %rbp,
otoh, won't plausibly fault. IOW I think it's far more than "half of
the time" that this change helps.

>> (To give a specific example,
>> the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
>> Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
>> get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
>> may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)
>>
>> Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.
> 
> This far, I'm happy with.
> 
>> Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
>> question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
>> be part of the call stack.
> 
> I'm still opposed to this.  The introduction of ? does more harm than
> good IMO, because it simply can't be trusted.
> 
> Stack traces are not guaranteed-accurate, even with frame pointers
> enabled.  The only thing we can say for certain in any trace is where
> %rip points.

Yes, I realize you still don't like this. But similarly to the
other patch set - on the v1 discussion here I was lacking
feedback, and hence I eventually timed out and sent v2. The
question is - what is your alternative proposal to distinguish
the truly guessed entry logged here from the more reliable
ones? And then similarly how to distinguish the less reliable
ones produced by the !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER variant of
_show_trace() from their more reliable counterparts?

Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Andrew Cooper]

On 03/07/2019 11:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.07.2019 12:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 17/06/2019 09:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Despite -fno-omit-frame-pointer the compiler may omit the frame pointer,
>>> often for relatively simple leaf functions.
>> Actually, the problem is more widespread than this.  For every function,
>> there is a non-zero quantity of time between the function starting and
>> the frame pointer being set up.
>>
>> However, half of this time is spent with the old %rbp on the top of the
>> stack, so won't benefit from these changes.
> I think the compiler typically pairs push %rbp and mov %rsp, %rbp,
> but this pair may not sit at the beginning of the function. And it's
> that other code that's prone to crash. The push %rbp may also fault
> (most notably due to stack overrun), but that would then still have
> the top of stack covered by the change here. The mov %rsp, %rbp,
> otoh, won't plausibly fault. IOW I think it's far more than "half of
> the time" that this change helps.

My statement wasn't meant as a criticism, but more of an observation.

>
>>> (To give a specific example,
>>> the case I've run into this with is _pci_hide_device() and gcc 8.
>>> Interestingly the even more simple neighboring iommu_has_feature() does
>>> get a frame pointer set up, around just a single instruction. But this
>>> may be a result of the size-of-asm() effects discussed elsewhere.)
>>>
>>> Log the top-of-stack value if it looks valid _or_ if RIP looks invalid.
>> This far, I'm happy with.
>>
>>> Also annotate non-frame-pointer-based stack trace entries with a
>>> question mark, to signal clearly that any one of them may not actually
>>> be part of the call stack.
>> I'm still opposed to this.  The introduction of ? does more harm than
>> good IMO, because it simply can't be trusted.
>>
>> Stack traces are not guaranteed-accurate, even with frame pointers
>> enabled.  The only thing we can say for certain in any trace is where
>> %rip points.
> Yes, I realize you still don't like this. But similarly to the
> other patch set - on the v1 discussion here I was lacking
> feedback, and hence I eventually timed out and sent v2. The
> question is - what is your alternative proposal to distinguish
> the truly guessed entry logged here from the more reliable
> ones? And then similarly how to distinguish the less reliable
> ones produced by the !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER variant of
> _show_trace() from their more reliable counterparts?

A crazy idea I've just had.  Annotate all printed lines with a character
identifying which source of information we used?

We could have [r] for register state, [f] for "from frame pointer", and
[s] for "from stack rubble".

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/traps: widen condition for logging top-of-stack

[Jan Beulich]

On 03.07.2019 21:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 11:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.07.2019 12:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> I'm still opposed to this.  The introduction of ? does more harm than
>>> good IMO, because it simply can't be trusted.
>>>
>>> Stack traces are not guaranteed-accurate, even with frame pointers
>>> enabled.  The only thing we can say for certain in any trace is where
>>> %rip points.
>> Yes, I realize you still don't like this. But similarly to the
>> other patch set - on the v1 discussion here I was lacking
>> feedback, and hence I eventually timed out and sent v2. The
>> question is - what is your alternative proposal to distinguish
>> the truly guessed entry logged here from the more reliable
>> ones? And then similarly how to distinguish the less reliable
>> ones produced by the !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER variant of
>> _show_trace() from their more reliable counterparts?
> 
> A crazy idea I've just had.  Annotate all printed lines with a character
> identifying which source of information we used?
> 
> We could have [r] for register state, [f] for "from frame pointer", and
> [s] for "from stack rubble".

I'm fine with the fundamental idea, but I'm not overly happy with the
second pair of (square) brackets that would appear. Two variants of
what your proposal come to mind:

1) Use (like I did) '?' for "stack rubble" (as you call it), '*' for
frame pointer based entries, and '!' for register ones.

2) Instead of the extra brackets, prefix a character along of what
you've suggested (I'd use upper case ones though) immediately
inside the already present brackets, followed e.g. by a colon as
separator.

Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel