Hi Madhavan,
I've noted some concerns below. At a high-level, I'm not keen on the
blacklisting approach, and I think there's some other preparatory work
that would be more valuable in the short term.
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. 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.
As I mentioned before, I'm currently reworking the entry assembly to
make this simpler to do. I'd prefer to not make invasive changes in that
area until that's sorted.
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().
> - Using kallsyms_lookup(), lookup the symbol table entries for the
> functions and record their address ranges
>
> - Define an is_reliable_function(pc) to match a return PC against
> the special functions.
>
> The unwinder calls is_reliable_function(pc) for every return PC and marks
> the stack trace as reliable or unreliable accordingly.
>
> Return address check
> ====================
>
> Check the return PC of every stack frame to make sure that it is a valid
> kernel text address (and not some generated code, for example).
>
> Detect EL1 exception frame
> ==========================
>
> EL1 exceptions can happen on any instruction including instructions in
> the frame pointer prolog or epilog. Depending on where exactly they happen,
> they could render the stack trace unreliable.
>
> Add all of the EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
>
> - el1_sync()
> - el1_irq()
> - el1_error()
> - el1_sync_invalid()
> - el1_irq_invalid()
> - el1_fiq_invalid()
> - el1_error_invalid()
>
> Detect ftrace frame
> ===================
>
> When FTRACE executes at the beginning of a traced function, it creates two
> frames and calls the tracer function:
>
> - One frame for the traced function
>
> - One frame for the caller of the traced function
>
> That gives a sensible stack trace while executing in the tracer function.
> When FTRACE returns to the traced function, the frames are popped and
> everything is back to normal.
>
> However, in cases like live patch, the tracer function redirects execution
> to a different function. When FTRACE returns, control will go to that target
> function. A stack trace taken in the tracer function will not show the target
> function. The target function is the real function that we want to track.
> So, the stack trace is unreliable.
This doesn't match my understanding of the reliable stacktrace
requirements, but I might have misunderstood what you're saying here.
IIUC what you're describing here is:
1) A calls B
2) B is traced
3) tracer replaces B with TARGET
4) tracer returns to TARGET
... and if a stacktrace is taken at step 3 (before the return address is
patched), the trace will show B rather than TARGET.
My understanding is that this is legitimate behaviour.
> To detect stack traces from a tracer function, add the following to
> special_functions[]:
>
> - ftrace_call + 4
>
> ftrace_call is the label at which the tracer function is patched in. So,
> ftrace_call + 4 is its return address. This is what will show up in a
> stack trace taken from the tracer function.
>
> When Function Graph Tracing is on, ftrace_graph_caller is patched in
> at the label ftrace_graph_call. If a tracer function called before it has
> redirected execution as mentioned above, the stack traces taken from within
> ftrace_graph_caller will also be unreliable for the same reason as mentioned
> above. So, add ftrace_graph_caller to special_functions[] as well.
>
> Also, the Function Graph Tracer modifies the return address of a traced
> function to a return trampoline (return_to_handler()) to gather tracing
> data on function return. Stack traces taken from the traced function and
> functions it calls will not show the original caller of the traced function.
> The unwinder handles this case by getting the original caller from FTRACE.
>
> However, stack traces taken from the trampoline itself and functions it calls
> are unreliable as the original return address may not be available in
> that context. This is because the trampoline calls FTRACE to gather trace
> data as well as to obtain the actual return address and FTRACE discards the
> record of the original return address along the way.
The reason we cannot unwind the trampolines in the usual way is because
they are not AAPCS compliant functions. We don't discard the original
return address, but it's not in the usual location. With care, we could
write a special case unwinder for them. Note that we also cannot unwind
from any PLT on the way to the trampolines, so we'd also need to
identify those. Luckily we're in charge of creating those, and (for
now) we only need to care about the module PLTs.
The bigger problem is return_to_handler, since there's a transient
period when C code removes the return address from the graph return
stack before passing this to assembly in a register, and so we can't
reliably find the correct return address during this period. With care
we could special case unwinding immediately before/after this.
If we could find a way to restructure return_to_handler such that we can
reliably find the correct return address, that would be a useful
improvement today, and would mean that we don't have to blacklist it for
reliable stacktrace.
Thanks,
Mark.
> Add return_to_handler() to special_functions[].
>
> Check for kretprobe
> ===================
>
> For functions with a kretprobe set up, probe code executes on entry
> to the function and replaces the return address in the stack frame with a
> kretprobe trampoline. Whenever the function returns, control is
> transferred to the trampoline. The trampoline eventually returns to the
> original return address.
>
> A stack trace taken while executing in the function (or in functions that
> get called from the function) will not show the original return address.
> Similarly, a stack trace taken while executing in the trampoline itself
> (and functions that get called from the trampoline) will not show the
> original return address. This means that the caller of the probed function
> will not show. This makes the stack trace unreliable.
>
> Add the kretprobe trampoline to special_functions[].
>
> Optprobes
> =========
>
> Optprobes may be implemented in the future for arm64. For optprobes,
> the relevant trampoline(s) can be added to special_functions[].
> ---
> Changelog:
>
> v1
> - Define a bool field in struct stackframe. This will indicate if
> a stack trace is reliable.
>
> - Implement a special_functions[] array that will be populated
> with special functions in which the stack trace is considered
> unreliable.
>
> - Using kallsyms_lookup(), get the address ranges for the special
> functions and record them.
>
> - Implement an is_reliable_function(pc). This function will check
> if a given return PC falls in any of the special functions. If
> it does, the stack trace is unreliable.
>
> - Implement check_reliability() function that will check if a
> stack frame is reliable. Call is_reliable_function() from
> check_reliability().
>
> - Before a return PC is checked against special_funtions[], it
> must be validates as a proper kernel text address. Call
> __kernel_text_address() from check_reliability().
>
> - Finally, call check_reliability() from unwind_frame() for
> each stack frame.
>
> - Add EL1 exception handlers to special_functions[].
>
> el1_sync();
> el1_irq();
> el1_error();
> el1_sync_invalid();
> el1_irq_invalid();
> el1_fiq_invalid();
> el1_error_invalid();
>
> - The above functions are currently defined as LOCAL symbols.
> Make them global so that they can be referenced from the
> unwinder code.
>
> - Add FTRACE trampolines to special_functions[]:
>
> ftrace_graph_call()
> ftrace_graph_caller()
> return_to_handler()
>
> - Add the kretprobe trampoline to special functions[]:
>
> kretprobe_trampoline()
>
> v2
> - Removed the terminating entry { 0, 0 } in special_functions[]
> and replaced it with the idiom { /* sentinel */ }.
>
> - Change the ftrace trampoline entry ftrace_graph_call in
> special_functions[] to ftrace_call + 4 and added explanatory
> comments.
>
> - Unnested #ifdefs in special_functions[] for FTRACE.
>
> Madhavan T. Venkataraman (4):
> arm64: Implement infrastructure for stack trace reliability checks
> arm64: Mark a stack trace unreliable if an EL1 exception frame is
> detected
> arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable
> arm64: Mark stack trace as unreliable if kretprobed functions are
> present
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h | 8 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h | 2 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S | 12 ++
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 14 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 215 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 244 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 0d02ec6b3136c73c09e7859f0d0e4e2c4c07b49b
> --
> 2.25.1
>
