On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:06:29 +1100
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-11-09, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > > index ee696efec99f..c4dfafd43e11 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > > @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ static inline unsigned long kernel_stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > return regs->sp;
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > > +#define stack_addr(regs) ((unsigned long *) kernel_stack_pointer(regs))
> >
> > No, you should use kernel_stack_pointer(regs) itself instead of stack_addr().
> >
> > >
> > > #define GET_IP(regs) ((regs)->ip)
> > > #define GET_FP(regs) ((regs)->bp)
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> > > index b0d1e81c96bb..eb4da885020c 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> > > @@ -69,8 +69,6 @@
> > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe) = NULL;
> > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe_ctlblk, kprobe_ctlblk);
> > >
> > > -#define stack_addr(regs) ((unsigned long *)kernel_stack_pointer(regs))
> >
> > I don't like keeping this meaningless macro... this should be replaced with generic
> > kernel_stack_pointer() macro.
>
> Sure. This patch was just an example -- I can remove stack_addr() all
> over.
>
> > > - if (regs)
> > > - save_stack_address(trace, regs->ip, nosched);
> > > + if (regs) {
> > > + /* XXX: Currently broken -- stack_addr(regs) doesn't match entry. */
> > > + addr = regs->ip;
> >
> > Since this part is for storing regs->ip as a top of call-stack, this
> > seems correct code. Stack unwind will be done next block.
>
> This comment was referring to the usage of stack_addr(). stack_addr()
> doesn't give you the right result (it isn't the address of the return
> address -- it's slightly wrong). This is the main issue I was having --
> am I doing something wrong here?
Of course stack_addr() actually just returns where the stack is. It should
not return address, but maybe a return address from this event happens.
Note that the "regs != NULL" means you will be in the interrupt handler
and it will be returned to the regs->ip.
> > > + //addr = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(current, &state.graph_idx, addr, stack_addr(regs));
> >
> > so func graph return trampoline address will be shown only when unwinding stack entries.
> > I mean func-graph tracer is not used as an event, so it never kicks stackdump.
>
> Just to make sure I understand what you're saying -- func-graph trace
> will never actually call __ftrace_stack_trace? Because if it does, then
> this code will be necessary (and then I'm a bit confused why the
> unwinder has func-graph trace code -- if stack traces are never taken
> under func-graph then the code in the unwinder is not necessary)
You seems misunderstanding. Even if this is not called from func-graph
tracer, the stack entries are already replaced with func-graph trampoline.
However, regs->ip (IRQ return address) is never replaced by the func-graph
trampoline.
> My reason for commenting this out is because at this point "state" isn't
> initialised and thus .graph_idx would not be correctly handled during
> unwind (and it's the same reason I commented it out later).
OK, but anyway, I think we don't need it.
> > > + addr = kretprobe_ret_addr(current, addr, stack_addr(regs));
> >
> > But since kretprobe will be an event, which can kick the stackdump.
> > BTW, from kretprobe, regs->ip should always be the trampoline handler,
> > see arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c:772 :-)
> > So it must be fixed always.
>
> Right, but kretprobe_ret_addr() is returning the *original* return
> address (and we need to do an (addr == kretprobe_trampoline)). The
> real problem is that stack_addr(regs) isn't the same as it is during
> kretprobe setup (but kretprobe_ret_addr() works everywhere else).
I think stack_addr(regs) should be same when this is called from kretprobe
handler context. Otherwise, yes, it is not same, but in that case, regs->ip
is not kretprobe_trampoline too.
If you find kretprobe_trampoline on the "stack", of course it's address should be
same as it is during kretprobe setup, but if you find kretprobe_trampoline on the
regs->ip, that should always happen on kretprobe handler context. Otherwise,
some critical violation happens on kretprobe_trampoline. In that case, we should
dump the kretprobe_trampoline address itself, should not recover it.
> > > @@ -1856,6 +1870,41 @@ static int pre_handler_kretprobe(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > }
> > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(pre_handler_kretprobe);
> > >
> > > +unsigned long kretprobe_ret_addr(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long ret,
> > > + unsigned long *retp)
> > > +{
> > > + struct kretprobe_instance *ri;
> > > + unsigned long flags = 0;
> > > + struct hlist_head *head;
> > > + bool need_lock;
> > > +
> > > + if (likely(ret != (unsigned long) &kretprobe_trampoline))
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + need_lock = !kretprobe_hash_is_locked(tsk);
> > > + if (WARN_ON(need_lock))
> > > + kretprobe_hash_lock(tsk, &head, &flags);
> > > + else
> > > + head = kretprobe_inst_table_head(tsk);
> >
> > This may not work unless this is called from the kretprobe handler context,
> > since if we are out of kretprobe handler context, another CPU can lock the
> > hash table and it can be detected by kretprobe_hash_is_locked();.
>
> Yeah, I noticed this as well when writing it (but needed a quick impl
> that I could test). I will fix this, thanks!
>
> By is_kretprobe_handler_context() I imagine you are referring to
> checking is_kretprobe(current_kprobe())?
yes, that's correct :)
Thank you,
>
> > So, we should check we are in the kretprobe handler context if tsk == current,
> > if not, we definately can lock the hash lock without any warning. This can
> > be something like;
> >
> > if (is_kretprobe_handler_context()) {
> > // kretprobe_hash_lock(current == tsk) has been locked by caller
> > if (tsk != current && kretprobe_hash(tsk) != kretprobe_hash(current))
> > // the hash of tsk and current can be same.
> > need_lock = true;
> > } else
> > // we should take a lock for tsk.
> > need_lock = true;
>
> --
> Aleksa Sarai
> Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
> SUSE Linux GmbH
> <https://www.cyphar.com/>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
