From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC98EC433C1 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:06:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E462619B8 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:06:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6E462619B8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=5eIR4YVVhR2juArL9uOB3GeNgFQEvY6wE1b2Y/lL1Uw=; b=P93lZRKr1w+NZmXU8tkpUOeXd rgV5Y7G5psH/YXX8xU6FAGhB92nC/BIYewwIykQdUaH8wKj65ILP4O+VnYmIA+dbgzTJlGnMXCJRE VS2sZXa1MV2FjTzvYiRwqHNWT/KNHlhadRKeO/LK13BzNg2QBSsb09PZFpX836arQMuuYLEJfrPMu nfCJONxPqzhAa7puP/illoMFVtILKykVtpW5vdPqrYBxWNdDUMy2tvKKzJ/j/IMD+R6DAxIaV37gT 2kYueiJO5vColQaWcJU1B7uaBOEaWS7GxvZ4xdl2/zuAjfA+cbnzIC8P0IwYUbj7p+sp/Th6tCt9L b2epBvFPg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=desiato.infradead.org) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lOgiP-00F0PN-9Y; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:04:58 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lOgiK-00F0Om-4N for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:04:54 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2128106F; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 06:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from C02TD0UTHF1T.local (unknown [10.57.24.204]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47F0A3F719; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 06:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:04:37 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Cc: broonie@kernel.org, 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 4/8] arm64: Detect an EL1 exception frame and mark a stack trace unreliable Message-ID: <20210323130425.GA98545@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> References: <5997dfe8d261a3a543667b83c902883c1e4bd270> <20210315165800.5948-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210315165800.5948-5-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210323104251.GD95840@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210323_130452_473544_C469D8E9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 39.01 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 07:46:10AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > On 3/23/21 5:42 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:57:56AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote: > >> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" > >> > >> EL1 exceptions can happen on any instruction including instructions in > >> the frame pointer prolog or epilog. Depending on where exactly they happen, > >> they could render the stack trace unreliable. > >> > >> If an EL1 exception frame is found on the stack, mark the stack trace as > >> unreliable. > >> > >> Now, the EL1 exception frame is not at any well-known offset on the stack. > >> It can be anywhere on the stack. In order to properly detect an EL1 > >> exception frame the following checks must be done: > >> > >> - The frame type must be EL1_FRAME. > >> > >> - When the register state is saved in the EL1 pt_regs, the frame > >> pointer x29 is saved in pt_regs->regs[29] and the return PC > >> is saved in pt_regs->pc. These must match with the current > >> frame. > > > > Before you can do this, you need to reliably identify that you have a > > pt_regs on the stack, but this patch uses a heuristic, which is not > > reliable. > > > > However, instead you can identify whether you're trying to unwind > > through one of the EL1 entry functions, which tells you the same thing > > without even having to look at the pt_regs. > > > > We can do that based on the entry functions all being in .entry.text, > > which we could further sub-divide to split the EL0 and EL1 entry > > functions. > > Yes. I will check the entry functions. But I still think that we should > not rely on just one check. The additional checks will make it robust. > So, I suggest that the return address be checked first. If that passes, > then we can be reasonably sure that there are pt_regs. Then, check > the other things in pt_regs. What do you think this will catch? The only way to correctly identify whether or not we have a pt_regs is to check whether we're in specific portions of the EL1 entry assembly where the regs exist. However, as any EL1<->EL1 transition cannot be safely unwound, we'd mark any trace going through the EL1 entry assembly as unreliable. Given that, I don't think it's useful to check the regs, and I'd prefer to avoid the subtlteties involved in attempting to do so. [...] > >> +static void check_if_reliable(unsigned long fp, struct stackframe *frame, > >> + struct stack_info *info) > >> +{ > >> + struct pt_regs *regs; > >> + unsigned long regs_start, regs_end; > >> + > >> + /* > >> + * If the stack trace has already been marked unreliable, just > >> + * return. > >> + */ > >> + if (!frame->reliable) > >> + return; > >> + > >> + /* > >> + * Assume that this is an intermediate marker frame inside a pt_regs > >> + * structure created on the stack and get the pt_regs pointer. Other > >> + * checks will be done below to make sure that this is a marker > >> + * frame. > >> + */ > > > > Sorry, but NAK to this approach specifically. This isn't reliable (since > > it can be influenced by arbitrary data on the stack), and it's far more > > complicated than identifying the entry functions specifically. > > As I mentioned above, I agree that we should check the return address. But > just as a precaution, I think we should double check the pt_regs. > > Is that OK with you? It does not take away anything or increase the risk in > anyway. I think it makes it more robust. As above, I think that the work necessary to correctly access the regs means that it's not helpful to check the regs themselves. If you have something in mind where checking the regs is helpful I'm happy to consider that, but my general preference would be to stay away from the regs for now. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel