public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	kuba@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, ast@kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, kernel-team@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 3/3] x86/kprobes,orc: Unwind optprobe trampoline correctly
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:19:50 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210401111950.79b61063e8c87d6a39ec371e@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210401104452.e442afd995d32afecf991301@kernel.org>

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 10:44:52 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:57:36 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:44:56PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC
> > > +unsigned long recover_optprobe_trampoline(unsigned long addr, unsigned long *sp)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned long offset, entry, probe_addr;
> > > +	struct optimized_kprobe *op;
> > > +	struct orc_entry *orc;
> > > +
> > > +	entry = find_kprobe_optinsn_slot_entry(addr);
> > > +	if (!entry)
> > > +		return addr;
> > > +
> > > +	offset = addr - entry;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Decode arg1 and get the optprobe */
> > > +	op = (void *)extract_set_arg1((void *)(entry + TMPL_MOVE_IDX));
> > > +	if (!op)
> > > +		return addr;
> > > +
> > > +	probe_addr = (unsigned long)op->kp.addr;
> > > +
> > > +	if (offset < TMPL_END_IDX) {
> > > +		orc = orc_find((unsigned long)optprobe_template_func + offset);
> > > +		if (!orc || orc->sp_reg != ORC_REG_SP)
> > > +			return addr;
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Since optprobe trampoline doesn't push caller on the stack,
> > > +		 * need to decrement 1 stack entry size
> > > +		 */
> > > +		*sp += orc->sp_offset - sizeof(long);
> > > +		return probe_addr;
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		return probe_addr + offset - TMPL_END_IDX;
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Hm, I'd like to avoid intertwining kprobes and ORC like this.
> > 
> > ORC unwinds other generated code by assuming the generated code uses a
> > frame pointer.  Could we do that here?
> 
> No, because the optprobe is not a function call. I considered to make
> it call, but since it has to execute copied instructions directly on
> the trampoline code (without changing stack frame) it is not possible.
> 
> > With CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, unwinding works because SAVE_REGS_STRING has
> > ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER, but that's not going to work for ORC.
> 
> Even in that case, the problem is that any interrupt can happen
> before doing ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER. I think this ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER
> in the SAVE_REGS_STRING is for probing right before the target
> function setup a frame pointer.
> 
> > Instead of these patches, can we 'push %rbp; mov %rsp, %rbp' at the
> > beginning of the template and 'pop %rbp' at the end?
> 
> No, since the trampoline code is not called, it is jumped into.
> This means there is no "return address" in the stack. If we setup
> the frame, there is no return address, thus it might stop there.
> (Moreover, optprobe can copy multiple instructins on trampoline
> buffer, since relative jump consumes 5bytes. where is the "return address"?)
> 
> > 
> > I guess SAVE_REGS_STRING would need to be smart enough to push the
> > original saved version of %rbp.  Of course then that breaks the
> > kretprobe_trampoline() usage, so it may need to be a separate macro.
> > 
> > [ Or make the same change to kretprobe_trampoline().  Then the other
> >   patch set wouldn't be needed either ;-) ]
> 
> Hmm, I don't think it is a good idea which making such change on the
> optimized (hot) path only for the stack tracing. Moreover, that maybe
> not transparent with the stack made by int3.
> 
> > Of course the downside is, when you get an interrupt during the frame
> > pointer setup, unwinding is broken.  But I think that's acceptable for
> > generated code.  We've lived with that limitation for all code, with
> > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, for many years.
> 
> But above code can fix such issue too. To fix a corner case, non-generic
> code may be required, even it is not so simple.

Hmm, I would like to confirm your policy on ORC unwinder. If it doesn't
care the stacktrace from the interrupt handler, I think your suggestion
is OK. But in that case, from a developer viewpoint, I need to recommend
users to configure CONFIG_UNWIND_FRAME=y when CONFIG_KPROBES=y.

> > Eventually we may want to have a way to register generated code (and the
> > ORC for it).

I see, but the generated code usually does not have a generic way to
handle it. E.g. bpf has a solid entry point, but kretprobe trampoline's
entry point is any "RET", optprobe trampoline's entry point is a jump
which is also generated (patched) ...

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-01  2:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-31  5:44 [RFC PATCH -tip 0/3] x86/kprobes,orc: Fix ORC unwinder to unwind stack with optimized probe Masami Hiramatsu
2021-03-31  5:44 ` [RFC PATCH -tip 1/3] x86/kprobes: Add ORC information to optprobe template Masami Hiramatsu
2021-03-31  5:44 ` [RFC PATCH -tip 2/3] kprobes: Add functions to find instruction buffer entry address Masami Hiramatsu
2021-03-31  5:44 ` [RFC PATCH -tip 3/3] x86/kprobes,orc: Unwind optprobe trampoline correctly Masami Hiramatsu
2021-03-31 15:57   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-01  1:44     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2021-04-01  2:19       ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2021-04-01  1:54   ` Masami Hiramatsu

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=20210401111950.79b61063e8c87d6a39ec371e@kernel.org \
    --to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dxu@dxuuu.xyz \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /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