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
>
