From: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
To: mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: [PATCH v13 08/11] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:56:05 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220117145608.6781-9-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
There are some kernel features and conditions that make a stack trace
unreliable. Callers may require the unwinder to detect these cases.
E.g., livepatch.
Introduce a new function called unwind_check_reliability() that will
detect these cases and set a flag in the stack frame. Call
unwind_check_reliability() for every frame in unwind().
Introduce the first reliability check in unwind_check_reliability() - If
a return PC is not a valid kernel text address, consider the stack
trace unreliable. It could be some generated code. Other reliability checks
will be added in the future.
Let unwind() return a boolean to indicate if the stack trace is
reliable.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h | 3 +++
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
index c11b048ffd0e..26eba9d7e5c7 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
@@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ struct stack_info {
* @final_fp Pointer to the final frame.
*
* @failed: Unwind failed.
+ *
+ * @reliable: Stack trace is reliable.
*/
struct unwind_state {
unsigned long fp;
@@ -70,6 +72,7 @@ struct unwind_state {
struct task_struct *task;
unsigned long final_fp;
bool failed;
+ bool reliable;
};
extern void dump_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk,
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 73fc6b5ee6fd..3dc0374e83f7 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -18,6 +18,25 @@
#include <asm/stack_pointer.h>
#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
+/*
+ * Check the stack frame for conditions that make further unwinding unreliable.
+ */
+static void unwind_check_reliability(struct unwind_state *state)
+{
+ if (state->fp == state->final_fp) {
+ /* Final frame; no more unwind, no need to check reliability */
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * If the PC is not a known kernel text address, then we cannot
+ * be sure that a subsequent unwind will be reliable, as we
+ * don't know that the code follows our unwind requirements.
+ */
+ if (!__kernel_text_address(state->pc))
+ state->reliable = false;
+}
+
/*
* AArch64 PCS assigns the frame pointer to x29.
*
@@ -54,6 +73,7 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
state->prev_fp = 0;
state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
state->failed = false;
+ state->reliable = true;
/* Stack trace terminates here. */
state->final_fp = (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe;
@@ -207,11 +227,15 @@ static void notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
-static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
+static bool notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
{
- while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie))
+ unwind_check_reliability(state);
+ while (unwind_continue(state, consume_entry, cookie)) {
unwind_next(state);
+ unwind_check_reliability(state);
+ }
+ return !state->failed && state->reliable;
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
--
2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-17 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <95691cae4f4504f33d0fc9075541b1e7deefe96f>
2022-01-17 14:55 ` [PATCH v13 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2022-01-17 14:55 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame() madvenka
2022-01-17 14:55 ` [PATCH v13 02/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions madvenka
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 03/11] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state madvenka
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 04/11] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-02-02 18:44 ` Mark Brown
2022-02-03 0:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-02-03 0:39 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-02-03 11:29 ` Mark Brown
2022-02-15 13:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 18:04 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 05/11] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-02-02 18:45 ` Mark Brown
2022-02-15 13:22 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-22 16:53 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 06/11] arm64: Use stack_trace_consume_fn and rename args to unwind() madvenka
2022-02-02 18:46 ` Mark Brown
2022-02-03 0:34 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-02-03 11:30 ` Mark Brown
2022-02-03 14:45 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-02-15 13:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 18:12 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-03-07 16:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-03-07 17:01 ` Mark Brown
2022-03-08 22:00 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-03-09 11:47 ` Mark Brown
2022-03-09 15:34 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-03-10 8:33 ` Miroslav Benes
2022-03-10 12:36 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-03-16 3:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-08 14:44 ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-08 17:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-10 17:42 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-10 17:33 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-10 17:45 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 07/11] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-01-17 14:56 ` madvenka [this message]
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 09/11] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 10/11] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-01-17 14:56 ` [PATCH v13 11/11] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE madvenka
2022-01-25 5:21 ` nobuta.keiya
2022-01-25 13:43 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-26 10:20 ` nobuta.keiya
2022-01-26 17:14 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-27 1:13 ` nobuta.keiya
2022-01-26 17:16 ` Mark Brown
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/9] arm64: livepatch: Use DWARF Call Frame Information for frame pointer validation madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] objtool: Parse DWARF Call Frame Information in object files madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/9] objtool: Generate DWARF rules and place them in a special section madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/9] dwarf: Build the kernel with DWARF information madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/9] dwarf: Implement DWARF rule processing in the kernel madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 5/9] dwarf: Implement DWARF support for modules madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 6/9] arm64: unwinder: Add a reliability check in the unwinder based on DWARF CFI madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 7/9] arm64: dwarf: Implement unwind hints madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 8/9] dwarf: Miscellaneous changes required for enabling livepatch madvenka
2022-04-07 20:25 ` [RFC PATCH v1 9/9] dwarf: Enable livepatch for ARM64 madvenka
2022-04-08 0:21 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/9] arm64: livepatch: Use DWARF Call Frame Information for frame pointer validation Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-08 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-11 17:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-11 17:18 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-12 8:32 ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-04-16 0:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-18 12:28 ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-04-18 16:11 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-18 18:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
[not found] ` <844b3ede-eddb-cbe6-80e0-3529e2da2eb6@huawei.com>
2022-04-12 17:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-16 1:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-14 14:11 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-08 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-08 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-08 14:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-10 17:47 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-04-11 16:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-08 12:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-11 17:35 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
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=20220117145608.6781-9-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@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=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
--cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.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).