Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: Add some basic LivePatch documentation

[Chris J Arges]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:14:35PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> LivePatch framework deserves some documentation, definitely.
> This is an attempt to provide some basic info. I hope that
> it will be useful for both LivePatch producers and also
> potential developers of the framework itself.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> This version incorporates feedback from all people who
> commented on v1. Thanks a lot for it.
> 
> Sometimes I copy&pasted the suggested text. Sometimes,
> I used my own invention. The text has grown from 277 to
> 400 lines. I wish I had a lighter pen. Anyway, please
> see what I hammered together.
> 
> Changes against v1:
> 
> + switched the order of the section 4 and 5
> + tiny changes in sections 1,2,6
> + heavily updated sections 3,4,5,7
>

Suggestions for rewording and grammar fixes are inline. This is very useful!
--chris

 
>  Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt | 400 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  MAINTAINERS                           |   1 +
>  2 files changed, 401 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7c4777e3170c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
> +=========
> +Livepatch
> +=========
> +
> +This document outlines basic information about kernel livepatching.
> +
> +Table of Contents:
> +
> +1. Motivation
> +2. Kprobes, Ftrace, Livepatching
> +3. Consistency model
> +4. Livepatch module
> +   4.1. New functions
> +   4.2. Metadata
> +   4.3. Livepatch module handling
> +5. Livepatch life-cycle
> +   5.1. Registration
> +   5.2. Enabling
> +   5.3. Disabling
> +   5.4. Unregistration
> +6. Sysfs
> +7. Limitations
> +
> +
> +1. Motivation
> +=============
> +
> +There are situations when people are really reluctant to reboot a system.
> +It might be because the computer is in the middle of a complex scientific
> +computation. Or the system is busy handling customer requests in the high
> +season.
> +
> +On the other hand, people also want to keep the system stable and secure.
> +This is where livepatch infrastructure comes handy. It allows selected
> +function calls to be redirected to a fixed implementation without
> +requiring a system reboot.
> +

There are many situations where users are reluctant to reboot a system. It may
be because their system is performing complex scientific computations or under
heavy load during peak usage. In addition to keeping systems up and running,
users want to also have a stable and secure system. Livepatching gives users
both by allowing for function calls to be redirected; thus, fixing critical
functions without a system reboot.

> +
> +2. Kprobes, Ftrace, Livepatching
> +================================
> +
> +There are multiple mechanisms in the Linux kernel that are directly related
> +to redirection of code execution; namely: kernel probes, function tracing,
> +and livepatching:
> +
> +  + The kernel probes are the most generic way. The code can be redirected
> +    by putting an interrupt instruction instead of any instruction.
> +

I would drop 'way'. Just 'most generic'.

> +  + The function tracer calls the code from a predefined location that is
> +    close the function entry. The location is generated by the compiler,
> +    see -pg gcc option.
> +

  + The function tracer calls the code from a predefined location that is
    close to the function entry point. This location is generated by the
    compiler using the '-pg' gcc option.

> +  + Livepatching typically needs to redirect the code at the very beginning
> +    of the function entry before the function parameters or the stack
> +    are anyhow muffled.
> +

..or the stack are in anyway modified.

> +All three approaches need to modify the existing code at runtime. Therefore
> +they need to be aware of each other and do not step over each other's toes.

..+they need to be aware of each other and not step over each other's toes.

> +Most of these problems are solved by using the dynamic ftrace framework as
> +a base. A Kprobe is registered as a ftrace handler when the function entry
> +is probed, see CONFIG_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE. Also an alternative function from
> +a live patch is called with help of a custom ftrace handler. But there are

+a live patch is called with the help of a custom ftrace handler. But there are

> +some limitations, see below.
> +
> +
> +3. Consistency model
> +====================
> +
> +Functions are there for a reason. They take some input parameters, get or
> +release locks, read, process, and even write some data in a defined way,
> +have return values. In other words, each function has a defined semantic.
> +
> +Many fixes do not change the semantic of the modified functions. For
> +example, they add a NULL pointer or a boundary check, fix a race by adding
> +a missing memory barrier, or add some locking about a critical section.

 +a missing memory barrier, or add some locking around a critical section.

> +Most of these changes are self contained and the function present itself

 +Most of these changes are self contained and the function presents itself

> +the same way to the rest of the system. In this case, the functions might
> +be updated independently one by one.
> +
> +But there are more complex fixes. For example, a patch might change
> +ordering of locking in more functions at the same time. Or a patch

 +ordering of locking in multiple functions at the same time. Or a patch

> +might exchange meaning of some temporary structures and update
> +all the relevant functions. In this case, the affected unit
> +(thread, whole kernel) need to start using all new versions of
> +the functions at the same time. Also the switch must happen only
> +when it is safe to do so, e.g. when the affected locks are released
> +or no data are stored in the modified structures at the moment.
> +
> +The theory about how to apply functions a safe way is rather complex.
> +The aim is to define a so-called consistency model. It means to define

 +The aim is to define a so-called consistency model. It attempts to define

> +conditions when the new implementation could be used so that the system
> +stays consistent. The theory is not yet finished. See the discussion at
> +http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1823033/focus=1828189
> +
> +The current consistency model is very simple. It guarantees that either
> +the old or the new function is called. But various functions get redirected
> +one by one without any synchronization.
> +
> +By other words, the current implementation _never_ modifies the behavior

 +In other words, the current implementation _never_ modifies the behavior

> +in the middle of the call. It is because it does _not_ rewrite the entire
> +function in the memory. Instead, the function gets redirected at the
> +very beginning. But this redirection is used immediately even when
> +some other functions from the same patch have not been redirected yet.
> +
> +See also the section "Limitations" below.
> +
> +
> +4. Livepatch module
> +===================
> +
> +Livepatches are distributed using kernel modules, see
> +samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c.
> +
> +The module includes a new implementation of functions that we want
> +to replace. In addition, it defines some structures describing the
> +relation between the original and the new implementation. Then there
> +is a code that makes kernel to start using the new code when the livepatch

 +is code that makes the kernel start using the new code when the livepatch

> +module is loaded. Also there is a code that do some clean up before the

 +module is loaded. Also there is code that cleans up before the

> +livepatch module is removed. All this is explained in more details in
> +the next sections.
> +
> +
> +4.1. New functions
> +------------------
> +
> +New versions of functions are typically just copied from the fixed

 +New versions of functions are typically just copied from the original

> +sources. A good practice is to add a prefix to the names so that they
> +can be distinguished from the original ones, e.g. in a backtrace. Also
> +they can be declared as static because they are not called directly
> +and do not need the global visibility.
> +
> +The patch contains only functions that are really modified. But they
> +might want to access functions or data from the original source.c

 +might want to access functions or data from the original source file

> +that have a local visibility there. This can be solved by a special

 +that may only be locally accessible. This can be solved by a special

> +relocation section in the generated livepatch module, see
> +Documentation/livepatch/module-elf-format.txt for more details.
> +
> +
> +4.2. Metadata
> +------------
> +
> +The patch is described by several structures that split the information
> +into three levels:
> +
> +  + struct klp_func is defined for each patched function. It describes
> +    the relation between the original and the new implementation of a
> +    particular function.
> +
> +    The structure includes the name, as a string, of the original function.
> +    The function address is found via kallsyms at runtime.
> +
> +    Then it includes the address of the new function. It is defined
> +    directly by assigning the function pointer. Note that the new
> +    function is typically defined in the same source file.
> +
> +    Optionally it includes a position of the original function in the
> +    kallsyms database. It is not the absolute position. Instead it is
> +    the sequence order in compare with the other symbols of the same name
> +    inside the same object. Where the object is either vmlinux or a kernel
> +    module. Note that kallsyms allows to search symbols according to
> +    the object name.
> +

As an optional parameter, the symbol position in the kallsyms database can be
used to disambiguate functions of the same name. This is not the absolute
position in the database, but rather the order it has been found only for a
particular object ( vmlinux or a kernel module ). Note that kallsyms allows for
searching symbols according to the object name.

> +
> +  + struct klp_object defines an array of patched functions (struct
> +    klp_func) in the same object. Where the object is either vmlinux
> +    (NULL) or a module name.
> +
> +    The structure helps to group and handle functions for each object
> +    together. Note that patched modules might be loaded later than
> +    the patch itself and the relevant functions might be patched
> +    only when they are available.
> +
> +
> +  + struct klp_patch defines an array of patched objects (struct
> +    klp_object).
> +
> +    It allows to handle all patched functions consistently and eventually

 +    This structure handles all patched functions consistently and eventually,

> +    synchronously. The whole patch is applied only when all patched
> +    symbols are found. The only exception are symbols from objects
> +    (kernel modules) that have not been loaded yet. Also if a more complex
> +    consistency model is supported then a selected unit (thread,
> +    kernel as a whole) will see the new code from the entire patch
> +    only when it is in a safe state.
> +
> +
> +4.3. Livepatch module handling
> +------------------------------
> +
> +The usual behavior is that the new functions will get used when
> +the livepatch module is loaded. For this, the module init() function
> +has to register the patch (struct klp_patch) and enable it. See
> +below the section "Livepatch life-cycle" for more details about
> +these two operations.
> +

 +has to register the patch (struct klp_patch) and enable it. See
 +the section "Livepatch life-cycle" below for more details about
 +these two operations.

> +The module removal is safe only when nobody is using the code.
> +The current consistency mode is not able to prove this. Therefore
> +the livepatch modules could not get removed at the moment. See
> +the limitations below.
> +

Module removal is only safe when there are no users of the underlying functions.
The immediate consistency model is not able to detect this; therefore livepatch
modules cannot be removed. See "Limitations" below.

> +
> +5. Livepatch life-cycle
> +=======================
> +
> +Livepatching defines four basic operations that define the life cycle
> +of each live patch. There are several reasons why it is done this way.
> +
 +Livepatching defines four basic operations that define the life cycle
 +of each live patch: registration, enabling, disabling and unregistration.
 +There are several reasons why it is done this way.

> +First, the patch is applied only when all patched symbols for already
> +loaded objects are found. The error handling is much easier if this
> +check is done before particular functions get redirected.
> +
> +Second, the simply consistency model does not guarantee that anyone is
> +not sleeping in the new code after the the patch got reverted. It means
> +that the new code would need to stay around "forever". If the code is
> +there, one might want to apply it again. Then it makes sense to separate
> +the operations that are might be done once and that need to be repeated
> +when the patch is enabled (applied) again.

 +Second, the immediate consistency model does not guarantee that anyone is
 +not sleeping in the new code after the patch is reverted. This means
 +that the new code needs to stay around "forever". If the code is
 +there, one could apply it again. Therefore it makes sense to separate
 +the operations that might be done once and those that need to be repeated
 +when the patch is enabled (applied) again.

> +Third, it might take some time until the entire system is migrated
> +when a more complex consistency model is used. The patch revert might
> +block the livepatch module removal for too long. Therefore it is useful
> +to revert the patch using a separate operation that might be called
> +explicitly. But it does not make sense to remove all information
> +until the livepatch module is really removed.
> +
> +
> +5.1. Registration
> +-----------------
> +
> +Each patch has first to be registered using klp_register_patch(). It makes

 +Each patch first has to be registered using klp_register_patch(). This makes

> +the patch known to the livepatch framework. Also it does some preliminary
> +computing and checks.
> +
> +In particular. the patch is added into the list of known patches. The

 +In particular, the patch is added into the list of known patches. The

> +addresses of the patched functions are found according to their names.
> +The special relocations, mentioned in the section "New functions", are
> +applied. The relevant entries are created under
> +/sys/kernel/livepatch/<name>. The patch is rejected when any operation
> +fails.
> +
> +
> +5.2. Enabling
> +-------------
> +
> +Registered patches might be enabled either by calling klp_enable_patch() or
> +by writing '1' to /sys/kernel/livepatch/<name>/enabled. The system will
> +start using the new implementation of the patched functions at this stage.
> +
> +In particular, if an original function is patched for the first time, a
> +function specific struct klp_ops is created and an universal ftrace handler
> +is registered.
> +
> +Functions might be patched multiple times. The ftrace handler is registered
> +only once for the given function. Further patches just add an entry to the
> +list (see field `func_stack`) of the struct klp_ops. The last added
> +entry is chosen by the ftrace handler and becomes the active function
> +replacement.
> +
> +Note that the patches might be enabled in a different order than they were
> +registered.
> +
> +
> +5.3. Disabling
> +--------------
> +
> +Enabled patches might get disabled either by calling klp_disable_patch() or
> +by writing '0' to /sys/kernel/livepatch/<name>/enabled. At this stage
> +either the code from the previously enabled patch or even the original
> +code gets used.
> +
> +Here all the functions (struct klp_func) associated with the to-be-disabled
> +patch are removed from the corresponding struct klp_ops. The ftrace handler
> +is unregistered and the struct klp_ops is freed when the func_stack list
> +gets empty.

 +becomes empty.

> +
> +Patches must be disabled in the exactly reverse order in which they were

 +Patches must be disabled in exactly the reverse order in which they were

> +enabled. It makes the problem and the implementation much easier.
> +
> +
> +5.4. Unregistration
> +-------------------
> +
> +Disabled patches might be unregistered by calling klp_unregister_patch().
> +This can be done only when the patch is disabled and the code is not longer

 +This can be done only when the patch is disabled and the code is no longer

> +used. It must be called before the livepatch module gets unloaded.
> +
> +At this stage, all the relevant sys-fs entries are removed and the patch
> +is removed from the list of known patches.
> +
> +
> +6. Sysfs
> +========
> +
> +Information about the registered patches might be found under

 +Information about the registered patches can be found under

> +/sys/kernel/livepatch. The patches could be enabled and disabled
> +by writing there.
> +
> +See Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch for more details.
> +
> +
> +7. Limitations
> +==============
> +
> +The current Livepatch implementation has several limitations:
> +
> +
> +  + The patch must not change the semantic of the patched functions.
> +
> +    The current implementation guarantees only that either the old
> +    or the new function is called. The functions are patched one
> +    by one. It means that the patch must _not_ change the semantic
> +    of the function.
> +
> +
> +  + Data structures can not be patched.
> +
> +    There is no support to version data structures or anyhow migrate
> +    one structure into another. Also the simple consistency model does
> +    not allow to switch more functions atomically.
> +
> +    Once there is more complex consistency mode, it will be possible to
> +    use some workarounds. For example, it will be possible to use a hole
> +    for a new member because the data structure is aligned. Or it will
> +    be possible to use an existing member for something else.
> +
> +    There are no plans to add more generic support for modified structures
> +    at the moment.
> +
> +
> +  + Only functions that can be traced could be patched.
> +
> +    Livepatch is based on the dynamic ftrace. In particular, functions
> +    implementing ftrace or the livepatch ftrace handler could not be
> +    patched. Otherwise, the code would end up in an infinite loop. A
> +    potential mistake is prevented by marking the problematic functions
> +    by "notrace".
> +
> +
> +  + Anything inlined into __schedule() can not be patched.
> +
> +    The switch_to macro is inlined into __schedule(). It switches the
> +    context between two processes in the middle of the macro. It does
> +    not save RIP in x86_64 version (contrary to 32-bit version). Instead,
> +    the currently used __schedule()/switch_to() handles both processes.
> +
> +    Now, let's have two different tasks. One calls the original
> +    __schedule(), its registers are stored in a defined order and it
> +    goes to sleep in the switch_to macro and some other task is restored
> +    using the original __schedule(). Then there is the second task which
> +    calls patched__schedule(), it goes to sleep there and the first task
> +    is picked by the patched__schedule(). Its RSP is restored and now
> +    the registers should be restored as well. But the order is different
> +    in the new patched__schedule(), so...
> +
> +    There is a work in progress to remove this limitation.

 +    There is work in progress to remove this limitation.

> +
> +
> +  + The livepatch modules could not be removed.

 +  + Livepatch modules can not be removed.

> +
> +    The current implementation just redirects the functions at the very
> +    beginning. It does not check if the functions are in use. By other

 +    beginning. It does not check if the functions are in use. In other

> +    words, it knows when the functions get called but it does not
> +    know when the functions return. Therefore it could not decide when
> +    the livepatch module could get removed.

 +    know when the functions return. Therefore it can not decide when
 +    the livepatch module can be safely removed.

> +
> +    This will get most likely solved once a more complex consistency model
> +    is supported. The idea is that a safe state for patching should also
> +    mean a safe state for removing the patch.
> +
> +    Note that the patch itself might get disabled by writing zero
> +    to /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/enabled. It causes that the new
> +    code will not longer get called. But it does not guarantee
> +    that anyone is not sleeping anywhere in the new code.
> +
> +
> +  + Livepatch works reliably only when the dynamic ftrace is located at
> +    the very beginning of the function.
> +
> +    The function need to be redirected before the stack or the function
> +    parameters are muffled any way. For example, livepatch requires

 +    parameters are modified in any way. For example, livepatch requires

> +    using -fentry gcc compiler option on x86_64.
> +
> +    One exception is the PPC port. It uses relative addressing and TOC.
> +    Each function has to handle TOC and save LR before it could call
> +    the ftrace handler. This operation has to be reverted on return.
> +    Fortunately, the generic ftrace code has the same problem and all
> +    this is is handled on the ftrace level.
> +
> +
> +  + Kretprobes using the ftrace framework conflict with the patched

 +  + Kretprobes using the ftrace framework conflicts with the patched

> +    functions.
> +
> +    Both kretprobes and livepatches use a ftrace handler that modifies

 +    Both kretprobes and livepatches use an ftrace handler that modifies

> +    the return address. The first user wins. Either the probe or the patch
> +    is rejected when the handler is already in use by the other.
> +
> +
> +  + Kprobes in the original function are ignored when the code is
> +    redirected to the new implementation.
> +
> +    There is a work in progress to add warnings about this situation.
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 1d5b4becab6f..d94ec31d5369 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -6688,6 +6688,7 @@ F:	kernel/livepatch/
>  F:	include/linux/livepatch.h
>  F:	arch/x86/include/asm/livepatch.h
>  F:	arch/x86/kernel/livepatch.c
> +F:	Documentation/livepatch/
>  F:	Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch
>  F:	samples/livepatch/
>  L:	live-patching@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> -- 
> 1.8.5.6
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>