Re: [PATCH] On ppc64le we HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Tue Dec 19 2017 - 16:46:59 EST
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:28:33PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:56:22PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:33:34PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:58:54 -0600
> > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 07:40:09PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:05:01 -0600
> > > > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > What about leaf functions? If a leaf function doesn't establish a stack
> > > > > > frame, and it has inline asm which contains a blr to another function,
> > > > > > this ABI is broken.
> > > >
> > > > Oops, I meant to say "bl" instead of "blr".
> You need to save LR, one way or the other. If gcc thinks it's a leaf function and
> does not do it, nor does your asm code, you'll return in an endless loop => bug.
Ah, so the function's return path would be corrupted, and an unreliable
stack trace would be the least of our problems.
So it sounds like .c files should be fine, unless I'm missing something
> > > > > > Also, even for non-leaf functions, is it possible for GCC to insert the
> > > > > > inline asm before it sets up the stack frame? (This is an occasional
> > > > > > problem on x86.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Inline asm must not have control transfer out of the statement unless
> > > > > it is asm goto.
> > > >
> > > > Can inline asm have calls to other functions?
> > >
> > > I don't believe so.
> > It's allowed on x86, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed on powerpc.
> > As you mentioned, GCC doesn't pay attention to what's inside asm("").
> > > > > > Also, what about hand-coded asm?
> > > > >
> > > > > Should follow the same rules if it uses the stack.
> > > >
> > > > How is that enforced?
> > >
> > > It's not, AFAIK. Gcc doesn't understand what's inside asm("").
> > Here I was talking about .S files.
> asm("") or .S ... the ABI spec is clear, and it's quite easy to follow. You
> need a place to save LR before you call another function, and STDU is so
> convenient to create a stack frame with a single instruction.
> My impression is one would have to be very determined to break the ABI
Ok. However, I perused the powerpc crypto code, because that was the
source of a lot of frame pointer breakage in x86. I noticed that some
of the crypto functions create their stack frame *before* writing the LR
to the caller's stack, which is the opposite of what compiled C code
does. That might confuse the unwinder if it were preempted in between.
But more on that below...
> > > > > > In addition to fixing the above issues, the unwinder also needs to
> > > > > > detect interrupts (i.e., preemption) and page faults on the stack of a
> > > > > > blocked task. If a function were preempted before it created a stack
> > > > > > frame, or if a leaf function blocked on a page fault, the stack trace
> > > > > > will skip the function's caller, so such a trace will need to be
> > > > > > reported to livepatch as unreliable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think there is much problem there for powerpc. Stack frame
> > > > > creation and function call with return pointer are each atomic.
> > > >
> > > > What if the function is interrupted before it creates the stack frame?
> There should be a pt_regs that shows exactly this situation, see below.
> > > Then there will be no stack frame, but you still get the caller address
> > > because it's saved in LR register as part of the function call. Then
> > > you get the caller's caller in its stack frame.
> > Ok. So what about the interrupted function itself? Looking at the
> > powerpc version of save_context_stack(), it doesn't do anything special
> > for exception frames like checking regs->nip.
> > Though it looks like that should be possible since show_stack() has a
> > way to identify exception frames.
> IIRC x86 errors out if a task was interrupted in kernel context. PPC
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() could do the same.
> Would that be sufficient?
Yes, I think that would cover most of my concerns, including the above
crypto asm issue.
(Otherwise, we'd at least need to make sure that nothing gets skipped by
the unwinder when getting preempted/page faulted in a variety of
scenarios, including before LR is saved to caller, after LR is saved to
caller, the crypto issue I mentioned above, etc)
So with your proposal, I think I'm convinced that we don't need objtool
for ppc64le. Does anyone disagree?
There are still a few more things that need to be looked at:
1) With function graph tracing enabled, is the unwinder smart enough to
get the original function return address, e.g. by calling
2) Similar question for kretprobes.
3) Any other issues with generated code (e.g., bpf, ftrace trampolines),
runtime patching (e.g., CPU feature alternatives), kprobes, paravirt,
etc, that might confuse the unwinder?
4) As a sanity check, it *might* be a good idea for
save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() to ensure that it always reaches the
end of the stack. There are several ways to do that:
- If the syscall entry stack frame is always the same size, then the
"end" would simply mean that the stack pointer is at a certain
offset from the end of the task stack page. However this might not
work for kthreads and idle tasks, unless their stacks also start at
the same offset. (On x86 we actually standardized the end of stack
location for all tasks, both user and kernel.)
- If the unwinder can get to the syscall frame, it can presumably
examine regs->msr to check the PR bit to ensure it got all the way
to syscall entry. But again this might only work for user tasks,
depending on how kernel task stacks are set up.
- Or a different approach would be to do error checking along the
way, and reporting an error for any unexpected conditions.
However, given that backlink/LR corruption doesn't seem possible with
this architecture, maybe #4 would be overkill. Personally I would
feel more comfortable with an "end" check and a WARN() if it doesn't
reach the end. But I could just be overly paranoid due to my x86
frame pointer experiences.