linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] ftrace: Add dynamically allocated trampolines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ion02yx3.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:16:08 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] ftrace: Add dynamically allocated trampolines

Hi Masami,

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:35:21 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/07/11 23:29), Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>>>>From 951d2aec17885a62905df6b910dc705d99c63993 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:58:33 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] x86/dumpstack: fix stack traces for generated code
>> 
>> If a function in the stack trace is dynamically generated, for example an
>> ftrace dynamically generated trampoline, print_context_stack() gets confused
>> and ends up showing all the following addresses as unreliable:
>> 
>>   [  934.546013]  [<ffffffff81700312>] dump_stack+0x45/0x56
>>   [  934.546020]  [<ffffffff8125f5b0>] ? meminfo_proc_open+0x30/0x30
>>   [  934.546027]  [<ffffffffa080a494>] kpatch_ftrace_handler+0x14/0xf0 [kpatch]
>>   [  934.546058]  [<ffffffff812143ae>] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0
>>   [  934.546062]  [<ffffffff812143ae>] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0
>>   [  934.546067]  [<ffffffff8125f5b5>] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0
>>   [  934.546071]  [<ffffffff8125f5b5>] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0
>>   [  934.546075]  [<ffffffff8121423a>] ? seq_read+0x16a/0x3b0
>>   [  934.546081]  [<ffffffff8125768d>] ? proc_reg_read+0x3d/0x80
>>   [  934.546088]  [<ffffffff811f0668>] ? vfs_read+0x98/0x170
>>   [  934.546093]  [<ffffffff811f1345>] ? SyS_read+0x55/0xd0
>>   [  934.546099]  [<ffffffff81707969>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> 
>> Once it encounters an address which is not in the kernel's text area, it gets
>> confused and stops updating the frame pointer.
>
> Right, this uses a module_alloc to get a memory for trampline, but
> it just allocates a page in executable vmalloc area. We need a hack
> in __kernel_text_address if we really want to use that.
>
>> The __kernel_text_address() check isn't needed when determining whether an
>> address is reliable.  It's only needed when deciding whether to print an
>> unreliable address.
>
> Yeah, I guess that is for the case that the frame pointer is broken.
>
>> 
>> Here's the same stack trace with this patch:
>> 
>>   [ 1314.612287]  [<ffffffff81700312>] dump_stack+0x45/0x56
>>   [ 1314.612290]  [<ffffffff8125f5b0>] ? meminfo_proc_open+0x30/0x30
>>   [ 1314.612293]  [<ffffffffa080a494>] kpatch_ftrace_handler+0x14/0xf0 [kpatch]
>>   [ 1314.612306]  [<ffffffffa00160c4>] 0xffffffffa00160c3
>
> Here, this still has a wrong entry. Maybe the trampline doesn't setup
> frame pointer (bp) correctly.

Hmm.. are you saying about the hex address above?  I guess it's a valid
entry in the (dynamic) trampoline, but has no symbol..


>
>>   [ 1314.612309]  [<ffffffff812143ae>] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0
>>   [ 1314.612311]  [<ffffffff812143ae>] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0
>>   [ 1314.612312]  [<ffffffff8125f5b5>] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0
>>   [ 1314.612314]  [<ffffffff8125f5b5>] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0
>>   [ 1314.612315]  [<ffffffff8121423a>] ? seq_read+0x16a/0x3b0

But these seem to be wrong - there're duplicate entries and they should
show some of these functions (at least) correctly IMHO.  I guess it's
because the trampoline didn't save rbp to the stack right below the
return address as dumpstack requires.

Thanks,
Namhyung


>>   [ 1314.612318]  [<ffffffff8125768d>] proc_reg_read+0x3d/0x80
>>   [ 1314.612320]  [<ffffffff811f0668>] vfs_read+0x98/0x170
>>   [ 1314.612322]  [<ffffffff811f1345>] SyS_read+0x55/0xd0
>>   [ 1314.612324]  [<ffffffff81707969>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 15 +++++++--------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> index b74ebc7..db0a33c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> @@ -102,14 +102,13 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
>>  		unsigned long addr;
>>  
>>  		addr = *stack;
>> -		if (__kernel_text_address(addr)) {
>> -			if ((unsigned long) stack == bp + sizeof(long)) {
>> -				ops->address(data, addr, 1);
>> -				frame = frame->next_frame;
>> -				bp = (unsigned long) frame;
>> -			} else {
>> -				ops->address(data, addr, 0);
>> -			}
>> +		if ((unsigned long) stack == bp + sizeof(long)) {
>> +			ops->address(data, addr, 1);
>> +			frame = frame->next_frame;
>> +			bp = (unsigned long) frame;
>> +			print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
>> +		} else if (__kernel_text_address(addr)) {
>> +			ops->address(data, addr, 0);
>>  			print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
>>  		}
>>  		stack++;
>> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/