Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] arm64: implement live patching

From: Suraj Jitindar Singh
Date: Wed Jun 09 2021 - 19:58:03 EST

Next message: Florian Fainelli: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci-iproc: Add support for the legacy sdhci controller on the BCM7211"
Previous message: Guenter Roeck: "Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: iTCO_wdt: use dev_*() instead of pr_*() for logging"
In reply to: Suraj Jitindar Singh: "Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] arm64: implement live patching"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 17:32 -0700, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-06-07 at 11:20 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 04:59:30PM -0700, Suraj Jitindar Singh
> > wrote:
> > > It's my understanding that the two pieces of work required to
> > > enable live
> > > patching on arm are in flight upstream;
> > > - Reliable stack traces as implemented by Madhavan T.
> > > Venkataraman
> > > [1]
> > > - Objtool as implemented by Julien Thierry [2]
> >
> > We also need to rework the arm64 patching code to not rely on any
> > code
> > which may itself be patched. Currently there's a reasonable amount
> > of
> > patching code that can either be patched directly, or can be
> > instrumented by code that can be patched.
>
> If I understand correctly you're saying that it's unsafe for patching
> code to call any other code (directly or indirectly) which can itself
> be patched.
>
> While I understand it's obviously important to fix this issue in the
> patching code as whole, live patching uses ftrace and as far as I can
> tell the only patching functions used by ftrace (in
> ftrace_modify_code()) is aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(). So would I
> be correct in my understanding that so long as that function doesn't
> call any other functions which can themselves be patched, then this
> would be safe?

On this note I now see that I was looking at a much older kernel tree
and this is much more involved than I previously thought.

- Suraj

>
> >
> > I have some WIP patches for that at:
> >
> >
> >
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/patching/rework
> >
> > ... but there's still a lot to do, and it's not clear to me if
> > there's
> > other stuff we need to rework to make patch-safe.
>
> Is there any work I could contribute to this?
>
> >
> > Do we have any infrastructure for testing LIVEPATCH?
>
> Not currently. However I'm thinking something which attempted to
> trivially patch every patchable function would provide pretty good
> test
> coverage (while being very slow).
>
> >
> > > This is the remaining part required to enable live patching on
> > > arm.
> > > Based on work by Torsten Duwe [3]
> > >
> > > Allocate a task flag used to represent the patch pending state
> > > for
> > > the
> > > task. Also implement generic functions klp_arch_set_pc() &
> > > klp_get_ftrace_location().
> > >
> > > In klp_arch_set_pc() it is sufficient to set regs->pc as in
> > > ftrace_common_return() the return address is loaded from the
> > > stack.
> > >
> > > ldr x9, [sp, #S_PC]
> > > <snip>
> > > ret x9
> > >
> > > In klp_get_ftrace_location() it is necessary to advance the
> > > address
> > > by
> > > AARCH64_INSN_SIZE (4) to point to the BL in the callsite as 2
> > > nops
> > > were
> > > placed at the start of the function, one to be patched to save
> > > the
> > > LR and
> > > another to be patched to branch to the ftrace call, and
> > > klp_get_ftrace_location() is expected to return the address of
> > > the
> > > BL. It
> > > may also be necessary to advance the address by another
> > > AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> > > if CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL is enabled due to the instruction
> > > placed
> > > at the
> > > branch target to satisfy BTI,
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/26/1212
> > > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/3/3/1135
> > > [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/26/536
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 ++
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h | 42
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h | 4 ++-
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 4 +++
> > > 4 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > index b098dabed8c2..c4636990c01d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ config ARM64
> > > select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS
> > > select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT if PERF_EVENTS
> > > select HAVE_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING
> > > + select HAVE_LIVEPATCH
> > > select HAVE_NMI
> > > select HAVE_PATA_PLATFORM
> > > select HAVE_PERF_EVENTS
> > > @@ -1946,3 +1947,5 @@ source "arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig"
> > > if CRYPTO
> > > source "arch/arm64/crypto/Kconfig"
> > > endif
> > > +
> > > +source "kernel/livepatch/Kconfig"
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h
> > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..72d7cd86f158
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > + *
> > > + * livepatch.h - arm64-specific Kernel Live Patching Core
> > > + */
> > > +#ifndef _ASM_ARM64_LIVEPATCH_H
> > > +#define _ASM_ARM64_LIVEPATCH_H
> > > +
> > > +#include <linux/ftrace.h>
> > > +
> > > +static inline void klp_arch_set_pc(struct ftrace_regs *fregs,
> > > unsigned long ip)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pt_regs *regs = ftrace_get_regs(fregs);
> > > +
> > > + regs->pc = ip;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * klp_get_ftrace_location is expected to return the address of
> > > the BL to the
> > > + * relevant ftrace handler in the callsite. The location of this
> > > can vary based
> > > + * on several compilation options.
> > > + * CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> > > + * - Inserts 2 nops on function entry the second of which
> > > is the
> > > BL
> > > + * referenced above. (See ftrace_init_nop() for the
> > > callsite
> > > sequence)
> > > + * (this is required by livepatch and must be selected)
> > > + * CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL:
> > > + * - Inserts a hint #0x22 on function entry if the
> > > function is
> > > called
> > > + * indirectly (to satisfy BTI requirements), which is
> > > inserted
> > > before
> > > + * the two nops from above.
> > > + */
> > > +#define klp_get_ftrace_location klp_get_ftrace_location
> > > +static inline unsigned long klp_get_ftrace_location(unsigned
> > > long
> > > faddr)
> >
> > Is `faddr` the address of the function, or the addresds of the
> > patch
> > site (the
> > dyn_ftrace::ip)? Either way, I think there's a problem; see below.
> >
>
> It is the address of the function.
>
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long addr = faddr + AARCH64_INSN_SIZE;
> > > +
> > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL)
> > > + addr = ftrace_location_range(addr, addr + AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> > > +#endif
> >
> > I don't think this is right; function are not guaranteed to have a
> > BTI,
> > since e.g. static functions which are called directly may not be
> > given
> > one:
>
> Correct, gcc only inserts the instruction on functions which it
> determines are called indirectly and thus validated.
>
> >
> > > [mark@lakrids:/mnt/data/tests/bti-patching]% cat test.c
> > > #define noinline __attribute__((noinline))
> > >
> > > static noinline void a(void)
> > > {
> > > asm volatile("" ::: "memory");
> > > }
> > >
> > > void b(void)
> > > {
> > > a();
> > > }
> > > [mark@lakrids:/mnt/data/tests/bti-patching]% usekorg 10.3.0
> > > aarch64-linux-gcc -c test.c -fpatchable-function-entry=2
> > > -mbranch-
> > > protection=bti -O2
> > > [mark@lakrids:/mnt/data/tests/bti-patching]% usekorg 10.3.0
> > > aarch64-linux-objdump -d
> > > test.o
> > >
> > > test.o: file format elf64-littleaarch64
> > >
> > >
> > > Disassembly of section .text:
> > >
> > > 0000000000000000 <a>:
> > > 0: d503201f nop
> > > 4: d503201f nop
> > > 8: d65f03c0 ret
> > > c: d503201f nop
> > >
> > > 0000000000000010 <b>:
> > > 10: d503245f bti c
> > > 14: d503201f nop
> > > 18: d503201f nop
> > > 1c: 17fffff9 b 0 <a>
> >
> > If `faddr` is the address of the function, then we'll need to do
> > something dynamic to skip any BTI. If it's the address of the patch
> > site, then we shouldn't need to consider the BTI at all: att boot
> > time
> > the recorded lcoation points at the first NOP, and at init time we
> > point
> > dyn_ftrace::ip at the second NOP -- see ftrace_call_adjust().
>
> faddr is the address of the function.
> This concern is what my code attempts to address.
>
> Either way we need the address of the branch which is
> AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> after the function address if BTI is _disabled_.
> If BTI is _enabled_ the branch could be either at the address we just
> computed or AARCH64_INSN_SIZE after it depending on if the
> instruction
> was inserted by the compiler. This is why ftrace_location_range() is
> used as it finds the correct ftrace branch location within the
> specified range.
> So the range is from
> faddr + AARCH64_INSN_SIZE (BTI disabled or enabled & not inserted)
> to
> faddr + 2 * AARCH64_INSN_SIZE (BTI enabled and instr inserted)
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
> Suraj.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + return addr;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#endif /* _ASM_ARM64_LIVEPATCH_H */
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > > index 6623c99f0984..cca936d53a40 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ int arch_dup_task_struct(struct task_struct
> > > *dst,
> > > #define TIF_UPROBE 4 /* uprobe breakpoint or
> > > singlestep
> > > */
> > > #define TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT 5 /* MTE Asynchronous Tag
> > > Check Fault */
> > > #define TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL 6 /* signal notifications
> > > exist */
> > > +#define TIF_PATCH_PENDING 7 /* pending live patching
> > > update */
> > > #define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE 8 /* syscall trace active
> > > */
> > > #define TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT 9 /* syscall auditing */
> > > #define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT 10 /* syscall tracepoint for
> > > ftrace */
> > > @@ -97,11 +98,12 @@ int arch_dup_task_struct(struct task_struct
> > > *dst,
> > > #define _TIF_SVE (1 << TIF_SVE)
> > > #define _TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT (1 << TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT)
> > > #define _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL (1 << TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
> > > +#define _TIF_PATCH_PENDING (1 << TIF_PATCH_PENDING)
> > >
> > > #define _TIF_WORK_MASK (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED |
> > > _TIF_SIGPENDING | \
> > > _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME |
> > > _TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE | \
> > > _TIF_UPROBE | _TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT | \
> > > - _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
> > > + _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL |
> > > _TIF_PATCH_PENDING)
> > >
> > > #define _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK (_TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE |
> > > _TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT | \
> > > _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT | _TIF_SECCOMP
> > > > \
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> > > b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> > > index 6237486ff6bb..d1eedb0589a7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/sizes.h>
> > > #include <linux/string.h>
> > > #include <linux/tracehook.h>
> > > +#include <linux/livepatch.h>
> > > #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> > > #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -932,6 +933,9 @@ asmlinkage void do_notify_resume(struct
> > > pt_regs
> > > *regs,
> > > (void __user *)NULL,
> > > current);
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (thread_flags & _TIF_PATCH_PENDING)
> > > + klp_update_patch_state(current);
> > > +
> > > if (thread_flags & (_TIF_SIGPENDING |
> > > _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL))
> > > do_signal(regs);
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
>
>

Next message: Florian Fainelli: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci-iproc: Add support for the legacy sdhci controller on the BCM7211"
Previous message: Guenter Roeck: "Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: iTCO_wdt: use dev_*() instead of pr_*() for logging"
In reply to: Suraj Jitindar Singh: "Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] arm64: implement live patching"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]