Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks

[Madhavan T. Venkataraman]

On 4/9/21 4:37 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:09:09PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:43:09PM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> There are a number of places in kernel code where the stack trace is not
>>> reliable. Enhance the unwinder to check for those cases and mark the
>>> stack trace as unreliable. Once all of the checks are in place, the unwinder
>>> can provide a reliable stack trace. But before this can be used for livepatch,
>>> some other entity needs to guarantee that the frame pointers are all set up
>>> correctly in kernel functions. objtool is currently being worked on to
>>> fill that gap.
>>>
>>> Except for the return address check, all the other checks involve checking
>>> the return PC of every frame against certain kernel functions. To do this,
>>> implement some infrastructure code:
>>>
>>> 	- Define a special_functions[] array and populate the array with
>>> 	  the special functions
>>
>> I'm not too keen on having to manually collate this within the unwinder,
>> as it's very painful from a maintenance perspective.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> I'd much rather we could associate this information with the
>> implementations of these functions, so that they're more likely to
>> stay in sync.
>>
>> Further, I believe all the special cases are assembly functions, and
>> most of those are already in special sections to begin with. I reckon
>> it'd be simpler and more robust to reject unwinding based on the
>> section. If we need to unwind across specific functions in those
>> sections, we could opt-in with some metadata. So e.g. we could reject
>> all functions in ".entry.text", special casing the EL0 entry functions
>> if necessary.
> 
> Couldn't this also end up being somewhat fragile?  Saying "certain
> sections are deemed unreliable" isn't necessarily obvious to somebody
> who doesn't already know about it, and it could be overlooked or
> forgotten over time.  And there's no way to enforce it stays that way.
> 

Good point!

> FWIW, over the years we've had zero issues with encoding the frame
> pointer on x86.  After you save pt_regs, you encode the frame pointer to
> point to it.  Ideally in the same macro so it's hard to overlook.
> 

I had the same opinion. In fact, in my encoding scheme, I have additional
checks to make absolutely sure that it is a true encoding and not stack
corruption. The chances of all of those values accidentally matching are,
well, null.

> If you're concerned about debuggers getting confused by the encoding -
> which debuggers specifically?  In my experience, if vmlinux has
> debuginfo, gdb and most other debuggers will use DWARF (which is already
> broken in asm code) and completely ignore frame pointers.
> 

Yes. I checked gdb actually. It did not show a problem.

>> I think there's a lot more code that we cannot unwind, e.g. KVM
>> exception code, or almost anything marked with SYM_CODE_END().
> 
> Just a reminder that livepatch only unwinds blocked tasks (plus the
> 'current' task which calls into livepatch).  So practically speaking, it
> doesn't matter whether the 'unreliable' detection has full coverage.
> The only exceptions which really matter are those which end up calling
> schedule(), e.g. preemption or page faults.
> 
> Being able to consistently detect *all* possible unreliable paths would
> be nice in theory, but it's unnecessary and may not be worth the extra
> complexity.
> 

You do have a point. I tried to think of arch_stack_walk_reliable() as
something that should be implemented independent of livepatching. But
I could not really come up with a single example of where else it would
really be useful.

So, if we assume that the reliable stack trace is solely for the purpose
of livepatching, I agree with your earlier comments as well.

Thanks!

Madhavan