Message-ID: <126f2c2ccadebcba37864453135d95d7@fau.de>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:35:38 +0100
From:   "Hack, Vanessa" <vanessa.hack@....de>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: objtool/ORC generation for noreturn functions

Am 2021-01-13 19:41, schrieb Josh Poimboeuf:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:44:22AM +0100, vanessa.hack@....de wrote:
>>    Hi,
>>    I am currently writing my final thesis at university on the topic 
>> of stack
>>    unwinding. My goal is to implement and evaluate stack unwinders for
>>    research operating system ports to x86 32 and 64 bit architectures 
>> and
>>    SPARC V8. 
>>    For the x86 ports I chose ORC as unwinding format due to its 
>> simplicity
>>    and reliability. So far, it works quite well (although I've ran 
>> into some
>>    minor issues with objtool as the research OS is written in C++). 
>>    But now I have some problems with functions that are explicitly 
>> marked as
>>    noreturn with the [[noreturn]] attribute, all following unwinding 
>> steps
>>    are unreliable. I have read in the objtool documentation that such
>>    functions have to be added to the objtool global_noreturn array.
>>    Unfortunately, I do not understand the purpose of that array and 
>> the
>>    intended ORC behaviour for noreturn functions. Are the unwinding 
>> steps
>>    that follow a noreturn intended to be unreliable? 
> 
> Hi Vanessa,
> 
> Nice thesis!  I'm impressed (and a little surprised) that objtool/ORC 
> is
> working in a non-Linux environment.  They were designed to be general
> purpose, but we've added some Linux-isms to them over the years.
> Congrats on getting that working.

Hi Josh,

thank you for your fast and very helpful answer! It actually worked 
quite well, the biggest problems occured due to C++ name mangling and 
relative switch jump tables. It is a lot clearer to me now.

> 
> What compiler is the OS built with?

It has to be built with gcc, but no specific version is required. In my 
case, I used gcc 8.3.0.

> 
> As you've found, noreturn functions can be problematic.  But they can 
> be
> unwinded through correctly, if handled carefully.
> 
> 
> 1) Objtool impact
> 
> Consider the following code pattern, generated by a C compiler:
> 
> func_A:
> 	...
> 	...
> 	call some_noreturn_func
> 
> func_B:
> 
> If some_noreturn_func() were to return, func_A() would fall through to
> func_B(), resulting in possibly disastrous undefined behavior.  But
> since some_noreturn_func() doesn't return, that can't happen.  The
> compiler knows it can't happen because of the noreturn attribute.
> 
> But if objtool doesn't know about the noreturn attribute, it assumes 
> the
> call can return, and execution can continue after it, resulting in the
> fallthrough:
> 
>   warning: objtool: func_A() falls through to next function func_B()
> 
> So that's the reason for the global_noreturn array.  It lets objtool
> know that execution doesn't continue after the call, so objtool can
> follow the code flow intended by the compiler.
> 
> Note that in addition, objtool tries to detect calls to noreturn
> functions in the same .o file, even if they don't have the noreturn
> attribute.  This matches GCC behavior, which automatically marks them 
> as
> noreturn even if they're missing the annotation.
> 
> 
> 2) ORC impact
> 
> Usually, an address on the stack is placed there by a call instruction,
> which pushes the return address on the stack before jumping to the
> called function.  The return address is the instruction *after* the 
> call
> instruction.  If you use that address to lookup the ORC entry, it will
> be right most of the time, because the call instruction doesn't change
> the stack layout, so the next instruction usually has the same stack
> layout as the call instruction.
> 
> However, if the call is to a noreturn function, then the next
> instruction might not have the same stack layout.  For example, in the
> above scenario with the call to some_noreturn_func().  After the call,
> the address placed on the stack will be that of func_B(), because that
> happens to be the instruction after the call.  But func_B() probably 
> has
> a different layout, so passing the address of func_B() to the ORC 
> lookup
> will corrupt the unwind.
> 
> What you really want to use for the lookup is the address of the call
> instruction itself.  In the case of ORC you can just subtract one from
> the address on the stack.
> 
> This is described in orc_unwind.c:
> 
> 	 * For a call frame (as opposed to a signal frame), state->ip points 
> to
> 	 * the instruction after the call.  That instruction's stack layout
> 	 * could be different from the call instruction's layout, for example
> 	 * if the call was to a noreturn function.  So get the ORC data for 
> the
> 	 * call instruction itself.
> 	 */
> 	orc = orc_find(state->signal ? state->ip : state->ip - 1);
> 
> Notice there's one edge case where you *don't* subtract one from the
> address.  That's when the address is placed on the stack for a reason
> *other* than a call.
> 
> That can happen in a "signal" frame, where an interrupt/signal handler
> places the preempted task's registers on the stack.  In that case the
> ORC type is UNWIND_HINT_TYPE_REGS and the address is retrieved from
> regs->sp, which is used as-is (without subtracting one), because there
> was no call.
> 
> 
> I hope that makes sense.  Let me know if you have any more questions.

Substracting 1 from the instruction pointer made it work :-) Thank you 
again! The unwinder now seems to figure out reliable and unreliable 
stack addresses for 'standard' call chains that only consist of regular 
calls.

> 
> Also, please let me know when the paper is available to read :-)

Of course, I will send you a link when the thesis is finished.

Regards,
Vanessa

Powered by blists - more mailing lists