From: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jpoimboe@redhat.com, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Build warnings in Xen 5.15.y and 5.10.y with retbleed backports
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 18:35:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yjxrp66.fsf@linux.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1b8fee7f-5af2-332e-d2c9-ceecd6ff487b@oracle.com> (Boris Ostrovsky's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:22:41 -0400")
Hi,
I see a patch for this has been queued up for 5.10 already ([1]), I'm
just sharing my findings in support of this patch here -- it doesn't
merely exchange one warning for another, but fixes a real issue and
should perhaps get applied to other stable branches as well.
TL;DR: for this particular warning, objtool would exit early and fail to
create any .orc_unwind* ELF sections for head_64.o, which are consumed
by the ORC unwinder at runtime.
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> writes:
> On 7/12/22 3:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 03:19:39PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/12/22 12:38 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'm seeing the following build warning:
>>>> arch/x86/kernel/head_64.o: warning: objtool: xen_hypercall_mmu_update(): can't find starting instruction
>>>> in the 5.15.y and 5.10.y retbleed backports.
The reason for this is that with RET being multibyte, it can cross those
"xen_hypecall_*" symbol boundaries, because ...
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why just this one hypercall is being called out by objtool,
>>>> and this warning isn't in 5.18 and Linus's tree due to I think commit
>>>> 5b2fc51576ef ("x86/ibt,xen: Sprinkle the ENDBR") being there.
>>>>
>>>> But, is this a ret call that we "forgot" here? It's a "real" ret in
>>>> Linus's branch:
>>>>
>>>> .pushsection .noinstr.text, "ax"
>>>> .balign PAGE_SIZE
>>>> SYM_CODE_START(hypercall_page)
>>>> .rept (PAGE_SIZE / 32)
>>>> UNWIND_HINT_FUNC
>>>> ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
>>>> ANNOTATE_UNRET_SAFE
>>>> ret
>>>> /*
>>>> * Xen will write the hypercall page, and sort out ENDBR.
>>>> */
>>>> .skip 31, 0xcc
>>>> .endr
>>>>
>>>> while 5.15.y and older has:
>>>> .pushsection .text
>>>> .balign PAGE_SIZE
>>>> SYM_CODE_START(hypercall_page)
>>>> .rept (PAGE_SIZE / 32)
>>>> UNWIND_HINT_FUNC
>>>> .skip 31, 0x90
... the "31" is no longer correct, ...
>>>> ANNOTATE_UNRET_SAFE
>>>> RET
... as with RET occupying more than one byte, the resulting hypercall
entry's total size won't add up to 32 anymore.
Note that those xen_hypercall_* symbols' values are getting statically
calculated as 'hypercall page + n * 32' in the HYPERCALL() #define from
xen-head.S. So there's a mismatch and with RET == 'ret; int3', the
resulting .text effectively becomes
101e: 90 nop
101f: c3 ret
0000000000001020 <xen_hypercall_mmu_update>:
1020: cc int3
1021: 90 nop
1022: 90 nop
This is probably already not what has been intended, but because 'ret'
and 'int3' both are single-byte encoded, objtool would still be able to
find at least some "starting instruction" at this point.
But with RET == 'jmp __x86_return_thunk', it becomes
101e: 90 nop
101f: e9 .byte 0xe9
0000000000001020 <xen_hypercall_mmu_update>:
1020: 00 00 add %al,(%rax)
1022: 00 00 add %al,(%rax)
1024: 90 nop
Here the 'e9 00 00 00 00' jmp crosses the symbol boundary and objtool
errors out.
>>>> .endr
>>>>
>>>> So should the "ret" remain or be turned into "RET" in mainline right
>>>> now?
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter --- this is overwritten by the hypervisor during
>>> initialization when Xen fills in actual hypercall code.
It does makes a difference though: even though objtool reports only a
warning, it still exits early in this particular case and won't create
any of the .orc_unwind* or .return_sites sections for head_64.o as it's
supposed to.
The significance of not having .orc_unwind* for head_64.o is that the
reliable stacktracing implementation would mark the swapper tasks'
stacktraces as unreliable at runtime, because the ORC unwinder would
fail to recognize their final secondary_startup_64() from head_64.o as
being the end. Note that livepatching relies on reliable stacktraces
when transitioning tasks.
>>>
>>>
>>> So f4b4bc10b0b85ec66f1a9bf5dddf475e6695b6d2 added 'ret' to make objtool happy and then 14b476e07fab6 replaced 'ret' with RET as part of SLS fixes. The latter was not really necessary but harmless.
>>>
>>>
>>> So it can be 'ret', RET, or anything else that tools don't complain about. It will not be executed.
>> Cool, thanks.
>> But what about the objtool warning that I now see? Is that "real"?
>
>
>
> It's not real in the sense that the code there is not real, it will be overwritten. (Originally the whole page was 'nop's)
>
>
> I am getting a different error BTW:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/head_64.o: warning: objtool: .text+0x5: unreachable instruction
>
I think this one is (mostly?) harmless, at least as as far as the
.orc_unwind* generation is concerned. Josh would know more.
Thanks,
Nicolai
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Ys+8ZYxkDmSCcDWv@kroah.com
>
>
>> I don't run any Xen systems, so I can't test any of this myself.
>
>
> You can't test any changes to that code --- it is rewritten when Xen guest is running.
>
>
> We probably do want to shut up objtool. Josh, any suggestions?
>
>
> -boris
>
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-16 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-12 16:38 Build warnings in Xen 5.15.y and 5.10.y with retbleed backports Greg KH
2022-07-12 19:19 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2022-07-12 19:31 ` Greg KH
2022-07-12 20:22 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2022-07-16 16:35 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2022-07-16 22:47 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2022-07-17 5:20 ` Juergen Gross
2022-07-18 13:36 ` Boris Ostrovsky
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=875yjxrp66.fsf@linux.fritz.box \
--to=nstange@suse.de \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.