Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

[Balbir Singh]

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 19:42 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> For live patching and possibly other use cases, a stack trace is only
> useful if it can be assured that it's completely reliable.  Add a new
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() function to achieve that.
> 
> Note that if the target task isn't the current task, and the target task
> is allowed to run, then it could be writing the stack while the unwinder
> is reading it, resulting in possible corruption.  So the caller of
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() must ensure that the task is either
> 'current' or inactive.
> 
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() relies on the x86 unwinder's detection
> of pt_regs on the stack.  If the pt_regs are not user-mode registers
> from a syscall, then they indicate an in-kernel interrupt or exception
> (e.g. preemption or a page fault), in which case the stack is considered
> unreliable due to the nature of frame pointers.
> 
> It also relies on the x86 unwinder's detection of other issues, such as:
> 
> - corrupted stack data
> - stack grows the wrong way
> - stack walk doesn't reach the bottom
> - user didn't provide a large enough entries array
> 
> Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done().
> 
> Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can
> determine at build time whether the function is implemented.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Could you comment on why we need a reliable trace for live-patching? Are
we in any way reliant on the stack trace to patch something broken?

Thanks,
Balbir Singh.