Re: [PATCH] recordmcount: only record relocation of type R_AARCH64_CALL26 on arm64.

Re: [PATCH] recordmcount: only record relocation of type R_AARCH64_CALL26 on arm64.

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:33:38 +0200
gregory.herrero@oracle.com wrote:

> From: Gregory Herrero <gregory.herrero@oracle.com>
> 
> Currently, if a section has a relocation to '_mcount' symbol, a new
> __mcount_loc entry will be added whatever the relocation type is.
> This is problematic when a relocation to '_mcount' is in the middle of a
> section and is not a call for ftrace use.
> 
> Such relocation could be generated with below code for example:
>     bool is_mcount(unsigned long addr)
>     {
>         return (target == (unsigned long) &_mcount);
>     }
> 
> With this snippet of code, ftrace will try to patch the mcount location
> generated by this code on module load and fail with:
> 
>     Call trace:
>      ftrace_bug+0xa0/0x28c
>      ftrace_process_locs+0x2f4/0x430
>      ftrace_module_init+0x30/0x38
>      load_module+0x14f0/0x1e78
>      __do_sys_finit_module+0x100/0x11c
>      __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x28/0x34
>      el0_svc_common+0x88/0x194
>      el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x8c
>      el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>     ---[ end trace d828d06b36ad9d59 ]---
>     ftrace failed to modify
>     [<ffffa2dbf3a3a41c>] 0xffffa2dbf3a3a41c
>      actual:   66:a9:3c:90
>     Initializing ftrace call sites
>     ftrace record flags: 2000000
>      (0)
>     expected tramp: ffffa2dc6cf66724
> 
> So Limit the relocation type to R_AARCH64_CALL26 as in perl version of
> recordmcount.
> 

I'd rather have this go through the arm64 tree, as they can test it
better than I can.

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

-- Steve


> Fixes: ed60453fa8f8 ("ARM: 6511/1: ftrace: add ARM support for C version of recordmcount")
> Signed-off-by: Gregory Herrero <gregory.herrero@oracle.com>
> ---
>  scripts/recordmcount.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/recordmcount.c b/scripts/recordmcount.c
> index 7225107a9aaf..e59022b3f125 100644
> --- a/scripts/recordmcount.c
> +++ b/scripts/recordmcount.c
> @@ -434,6 +434,11 @@ static int arm_is_fake_mcount(Elf32_Rel const *rp)
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> +static int arm64_is_fake_mcount(Elf64_Rel const *rp)
> +{
> +	return ELF64_R_TYPE(w(rp->r_info)) != R_AARCH64_CALL26;
> +}
> +
>  /* 64-bit EM_MIPS has weird ELF64_Rela.r_info.
>   * http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/manuals/4000/007-4658-001/pdf/007-4658-001.pdf
>   * We interpret Table 29 Relocation Operation (Elf64_Rel, Elf64_Rela) [p.40]
> @@ -547,6 +552,7 @@ static int do_file(char const *const fname)
>  		make_nop = make_nop_arm64;
>  		rel_type_nop = R_AARCH64_NONE;
>  		ideal_nop = ideal_nop4_arm64;
> +		is_fake_mcount64 = arm64_is_fake_mcount;
>  		break;
>  	case EM_IA_64:	reltype = R_IA64_IMM64; break;
>  	case EM_MIPS:	/* reltype: e_class    */ break;


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] recordmcount: only record relocation of type R_AARCH64_CALL26 on arm64.

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 22:01:19 +0200
Gregory Herrero <gregory.herrero@oracle.com> wrote:

> Thanks Steve.
> Should I send a V2 to add 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' in the commit
> description or can someone take care of it when adding the commit to
> the tree?

If I was taking it, I would simply add the Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
to the commit log, and no resend would be needed.

It's up to the ARM64 maintainers to decide in this case.

Cheers,

-- Steve

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] recordmcount: only record relocation of type R_AARCH64_CALL26 on arm64.

[Catalin Marinas]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:30:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:33:38 +0200
> gregory.herrero@oracle.com wrote:
> > From: Gregory Herrero <gregory.herrero@oracle.com>
> > Currently, if a section has a relocation to '_mcount' symbol, a new
> > __mcount_loc entry will be added whatever the relocation type is.
> > This is problematic when a relocation to '_mcount' is in the middle of a
> > section and is not a call for ftrace use.
> > 
> > Such relocation could be generated with below code for example:
> >     bool is_mcount(unsigned long addr)
> >     {
> >         return (target == (unsigned long) &_mcount);
> >     }
> > 
> > With this snippet of code, ftrace will try to patch the mcount location
> > generated by this code on module load and fail with:
> > 
> >     Call trace:
> >      ftrace_bug+0xa0/0x28c
> >      ftrace_process_locs+0x2f4/0x430
> >      ftrace_module_init+0x30/0x38
> >      load_module+0x14f0/0x1e78
> >      __do_sys_finit_module+0x100/0x11c
> >      __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x28/0x34
> >      el0_svc_common+0x88/0x194
> >      el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x8c
> >      el0_svc+0x8/0xc
> >     ---[ end trace d828d06b36ad9d59 ]---
> >     ftrace failed to modify
> >     [<ffffa2dbf3a3a41c>] 0xffffa2dbf3a3a41c
> >      actual:   66:a9:3c:90
> >     Initializing ftrace call sites
> >     ftrace record flags: 2000000
> >      (0)
> >     expected tramp: ffffa2dc6cf66724
> > 
> > So Limit the relocation type to R_AARCH64_CALL26 as in perl version of
> > recordmcount.
> 
> I'd rather have this go through the arm64 tree, as they can test it
> better than I can.
> 
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Thanks Steve.

> > Fixes: ed60453fa8f8 ("ARM: 6511/1: ftrace: add ARM support for C version of recordmcount")

This Fixes tag looks wrong. The above commit was for arm32.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] recordmcount: only record relocation of type R_AARCH64_CALL26 on arm64.

[Gregory Herrero]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 05:36:50PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:30:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:33:38 +0200
> > gregory.herrero@oracle.com wrote:
> > > From: Gregory Herrero <gregory.herrero@oracle.com>
> > > Currently, if a section has a relocation to '_mcount' symbol, a new
> > > __mcount_loc entry will be added whatever the relocation type is.
> > > This is problematic when a relocation to '_mcount' is in the middle of a
> > > section and is not a call for ftrace use.
> > > 
> > > Such relocation could be generated with below code for example:
> > >     bool is_mcount(unsigned long addr)
> > >     {
> > >         return (target == (unsigned long) &_mcount);
> > >     }
> > > 
> > > With this snippet of code, ftrace will try to patch the mcount location
> > > generated by this code on module load and fail with:
> > > 
> > >     Call trace:
> > >      ftrace_bug+0xa0/0x28c
> > >      ftrace_process_locs+0x2f4/0x430
> > >      ftrace_module_init+0x30/0x38
> > >      load_module+0x14f0/0x1e78
> > >      __do_sys_finit_module+0x100/0x11c
> > >      __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x28/0x34
> > >      el0_svc_common+0x88/0x194
> > >      el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x8c
> > >      el0_svc+0x8/0xc
> > >     ---[ end trace d828d06b36ad9d59 ]---
> > >     ftrace failed to modify
> > >     [<ffffa2dbf3a3a41c>] 0xffffa2dbf3a3a41c
> > >      actual:   66:a9:3c:90
> > >     Initializing ftrace call sites
> > >     ftrace record flags: 2000000
> > >      (0)
> > >     expected tramp: ffffa2dc6cf66724
> > > 
> > > So Limit the relocation type to R_AARCH64_CALL26 as in perl version of
> > > recordmcount.
> > 
> > I'd rather have this go through the arm64 tree, as they can test it
> > better than I can.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> 
> Thanks Steve.
> 
> > > Fixes: ed60453fa8f8 ("ARM: 6511/1: ftrace: add ARM support for C version of recordmcount")
> 
> This Fixes tag looks wrong. The above commit was for arm32.
> 
Thanks for catching this.
It should be as below instead:

  Fixes: af64d2aa872a ("ftrace: Add arm64 support to recordmcount")

Should I send a V2?

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel