linux-kernel - Re: Getting empty callchain from perf_callchain

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8449BBF3-E754-4ABC-BFEF-A8F264297F2D@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 21:48:14 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Getting empty callchain from perf_callchain_kernel()



> On May 17, 2019, at 2:06 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/17/19 11:40 AM, Song Liu wrote:
>> +Alexei, Daniel, and bpf
>> 
>>> On May 17, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:15:39PM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
>>>> Hi, I think the actual problem is that bpf_get_stackid_tp (and maybe
>>>> some other bfp functions) is now broken, or, strating an unwind
>>>> directly inside a bpf program will end up strangely. It have following
>>>> kernel message:
>>> 
>>> Urgh, what is that bpf_get_stackid_tp() doing to get the regs? I can't
>>> follow.
>> 
>> I guess we need something like the following? (we should be able to
>> optimize the PER_CPU stuff).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Song
>> 
>> 
>> diff --git i/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c w/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>> index f92d6ad5e080..c525149028a7 100644
>> --- i/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>> +++ w/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>> @@ -696,11 +696,13 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_event_output_proto_tp = {
>>         .arg5_type      = ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO,
>>  };
>> 
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pt_regs, bpf_stackid_tp_regs);
>>  BPF_CALL_3(bpf_get_stackid_tp, void *, tp_buff, struct bpf_map *, map,
>>            u64, flags)
>>  {
>> -       struct pt_regs *regs = *(struct pt_regs **)tp_buff;
>> +       struct pt_regs *regs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_stackid_tp_regs);
>> 
>> +       perf_fetch_caller_regs(regs);
> 
> No. pt_regs is already passed in. It's the first argument.
> If we call perf_fetch_caller_regs() again the stack trace will be wrong.
> bpf prog should not see itself, interpreter or all the frames in between.

Thanks Alexei! I get it now. 

In bpf_get_stackid_tp(), the pt_regs is get by dereferencing the first field
of tp_buff:

	struct pt_regs *regs = *(struct pt_regs **)tp_buff;

tp_buff points to something like

	struct sched_switch_args {
        	unsigned long long pad;
	        char prev_comm[16];
        	int prev_pid;
	        int prev_prio;
        	long long prev_state;
	        char next_comm[16];
        	int next_pid;
	        int next_prio;
	};

where the first field "pad" is a pointer to pt_regs. 

@Kairui, I think you confirmed that current code will give empty call trace 
with ORC unwinder? If that's the case, can we add regs->ip back? (as in the 
first email of this thread. 

Thanks,
Song