Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE frame and mark a stack trace unreliable

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:57:57AM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> When CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS is enabled and tracing is activated
> for a function, the ftrace infrastructure is called for the function at
> the very beginning. Ftrace creates two frames:
> 
> 	- One for the traced function
> 
> 	- One for the caller of the traced function
> 
> That gives a reliable stack trace while executing in the ftrace
> infrastructure code. When ftrace returns to the traced function, the frames
> are popped and everything is back to normal.
> 
> However, in cases like live patch, execution is redirected to a different
> function when ftrace returns. A stack trace taken while still in the ftrace
> infrastructure code will not show the target function. The target function
> is the real function that we want to track.
> 
> So, if an FTRACE frame is detected on the stack, just mark the stack trace
> as unreliable.

To identify this case, please identify the ftrace trampolines instead,
e.g. ftrace_regs_caller, return_to_handler.

It'd be good to check *exactly* when we need to reject, since IIUC when
we have a graph stack entry the unwind will be correct from livepatch's
PoV.

Thanks,
Mark.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S |  2 ++
>  arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c   | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> index b3e4f9a088b1..1ec8c5180fc0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@
>  	/* Create our frame record within pt_regs. */
>  	stp	x29, x30, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
>  	add	x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
> +	ldr	w17, =FTRACE_FRAME
> +	str	w17, [sp, #S_FRAME_TYPE]
>  	.endm
>  
>  SYM_CODE_START(ftrace_regs_caller)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 6ae103326f7b..594806a0c225 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ static void check_if_reliable(unsigned long fp, struct stackframe *frame,
>  {
>  	struct pt_regs *regs;
>  	unsigned long regs_start, regs_end;
> +	unsigned long caller_fp;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If the stack trace has already been marked unreliable, just
> @@ -68,6 +69,38 @@ static void check_if_reliable(unsigned long fp, struct stackframe *frame,
>  		frame->reliable = false;
>  		return;
>  	}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> +	/*
> +	 * When tracing is active for a function, the ftrace code is called
> +	 * from the function even before the frame pointer prolog and
> +	 * epilog. ftrace creates a pt_regs structure on the stack to save
> +	 * register state.
> +	 *
> +	 * In addition, ftrace sets up two stack frames and chains them
> +	 * with other frames on the stack. One frame is pt_regs->stackframe
> +	 * that is for the traced function. The other frame is set up right
> +	 * after the pt_regs structure and it is for the caller of the
> +	 * traced function. This is done to ensure a proper stack trace.
> +	 *
> +	 * If the ftrace code returns to the traced function, then all is
> +	 * fine. But if it transfers control to a different function (like
> +	 * in livepatch), then a stack walk performed while still in the
> +	 * ftrace code will not find the target function.
> +	 *
> +	 * So, mark the stack trace as unreliable if an ftrace frame is
> +	 * detected.
> +	 */
> +	if (regs->frame_type == FTRACE_FRAME && frame->fp == regs_end &&
> +	    frame->fp < info->high) {
> +		/* Check the traced function's caller's frame. */
> +		caller_fp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(frame->fp));
> +		if (caller_fp == regs->regs[29]) {
> +			frame->reliable = false;
> +			return;
> +		}
> +	}
> +#endif
>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>