Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2/12/25 11:25 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:45 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 06:36:04PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>> [ 81.261748] copy_process+0xfdc/0xfd58 [livepatch_special_static]
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that copy_process+0xfdc/0xfd58 resolve to this line in
>>>>> copy_process()?
>>>>>
>>>>> refcount_inc(¤t->signal->sigcnt);
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the klp rela reference to 'current' is bogus, or resolving to the
>>>>> wrong address somehow?
>>>>
>>>> It resolves the following line.
>>>>
>>>> p->signal->tty = tty_kref_get(current->signal->tty);
>>>>
>>>> I am not quite sure how 'current' should be resolved.
>>>
>>> Hm, on arm64 it looks like the value of 'current' is stored in the
>>> SP_EL0 register. So I guess that shouldn't need any relocations.
>>>
>>>> The size of copy_process (0xfd58) is wrong. It is only about
>>>> 5.5kB in size. Also, the copy_process function in the .ko file
>>>> looks very broken. I will try a few more things.
>>
>> When I try each step of kpatch-build, the copy_process function
>> looks reasonable (according to gdb-disassemble) in fork.o and
>> output.o. However, copy_process looks weird in livepatch-special-static.o,
>> which is generated by ld:
>>
>> ld -EL -maarch64linux -z norelro -z noexecstack
>> --no-warn-rwx-segments -T ././kpatch.lds -r -o
>> livepatch-special-static.o ./patch-hook.o ./output.o
>>
>> I have attached these files to the email. I am not sure whether
>> the email server will let them through.
>>
>> Indu, does this look like an issue with ld?
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Looks like there has been progress since and issue may be elsewhere, but:
>
> FWIW, I looked at the .sframe and .rela.sframe sections here, the data
> does look OK. I noted that there is no .sframe for copy_process () in
> output.o... I will take a look into it.
Hi Indu,
I saw another issue in my kernel build with sframes enabled (-Wa,--gsframe):
ld: warning: orphan section `.init.sframe' from `arch/arm64/kernel/pi/lib-fdt.pi.o' being placed in section `.init.sframe'
[... Many more similar warnings (.init.sframe) ...]
So, this orphan sections is generated in the build process.
I am using GNU ld version 2.41-50 and gcc (GCC) 11.4.1
Is this section needed for sframes to work? or can we discard
.init.sframe section with a patch like following to the linker script:
-- 8< --
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
index 6a437bd08..8e704c0a6 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
@@ -1044,9 +1044,16 @@ defined(CONFIG_AUTOFDO_CLANG) || defined(CONFIG_PROPELLER_CLANG)
# define SANITIZER_DISCARDS
#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_SFRAME_UNWIND_TABLE)
+#define DISCARD_INIT_SFRAME *(.init.sframe)
+#else
+#define DISCARD_INIT_SFRAME
+#endif
+
#define COMMON_DISCARDS \
SANITIZER_DISCARDS \
PATCHABLE_DISCARDS \
+ DISCARD_INIT_SFRAME \
*(.discard) \
*(.discard.*) \
*(.export_symbol) \
-- >8 --
Thanks,
Puranjay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
