Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1594007 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting  reliable stack traces Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting  reliable stack traces Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-07 17:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting  reliable stack traces Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 11:30 +0100

#1594007 — Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 19:42 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> For live patching and possibly other use cases, a stack trace is only
> useful if it can be assured that it's completely reliable.  Add a new
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() function to achieve that.
> 
> Note that if the target task isn't the current task, and the target task
> is allowed to run, then it could be writing the stack while the unwinder
> is reading it, resulting in possible corruption.  So the caller of
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() must ensure that the task is either
> 'current' or inactive.
> 
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() relies on the x86 unwinder's detection
> of pt_regs on the stack.  If the pt_regs are not user-mode registers
> from a syscall, then they indicate an in-kernel interrupt or exception
> (e.g. preemption or a page fault), in which case the stack is considered
> unreliable due to the nature of frame pointers.
> 
> It also relies on the x86 unwinder's detection of other issues, such as:
> 
> - corrupted stack data
> - stack grows the wrong way
> - stack walk doesn't reach the bottom
> - user didn't provide a large enough entries array
> 
> Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done().
> 
> Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can
> determine at build time whether the function is implemented.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> ---

Could you comment on why we need a reliable trace for live-patching? Are
we in any way reliant on the stack trace to patch something broken?

Thanks,
Balbir Singh.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1594396

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:50:55PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 19:42 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > For live patching and possibly other use cases, a stack trace is only
> > useful if it can be assured that it's completely reliable.  Add a new
> > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() function to achieve that.
> > 
> > Note that if the target task isn't the current task, and the target task
> > is allowed to run, then it could be writing the stack while the unwinder
> > is reading it, resulting in possible corruption.  So the caller of
> > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() must ensure that the task is either
> > 'current' or inactive.
> > 
> > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() relies on the x86 unwinder's detection
> > of pt_regs on the stack.  If the pt_regs are not user-mode registers
> > from a syscall, then they indicate an in-kernel interrupt or exception
> > (e.g. preemption or a page fault), in which case the stack is considered
> > unreliable due to the nature of frame pointers.
> > 
> > It also relies on the x86 unwinder's detection of other issues, such as:
> > 
> > - corrupted stack data
> > - stack grows the wrong way
> > - stack walk doesn't reach the bottom
> > - user didn't provide a large enough entries array
> > 
> > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done().
> > 
> > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can
> > determine at build time whether the function is implemented.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > ---
> 
> Could you comment on why we need a reliable trace for live-patching? Are
> we in any way reliant on the stack trace to patch something broken?

I tried to cover this comprehensively in patch 13/15 in
Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt.  Does that answer your questions?

-- 
Josh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1595021

On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 10:12 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:50:55PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 19:42 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > For live patching and possibly other use cases, a stack trace is only
> > > useful if it can be assured that it's completely reliable.  Add a new
> > > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() function to achieve that.
> > > 
> > > Note that if the target task isn't the current task, and the target task
> > > is allowed to run, then it could be writing the stack while the unwinder
> > > is reading it, resulting in possible corruption.  So the caller of
> > > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() must ensure that the task is either
> > > 'current' or inactive.
> > > 
> > > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() relies on the x86 unwinder's detection
> > > of pt_regs on the stack.  If the pt_regs are not user-mode registers
> > > from a syscall, then they indicate an in-kernel interrupt or exception
> > > (e.g. preemption or a page fault), in which case the stack is considered
> > > unreliable due to the nature of frame pointers.
> > > 
> > > It also relies on the x86 unwinder's detection of other issues, such as:
> > > 
> > > - corrupted stack data
> > > - stack grows the wrong way
> > > - stack walk doesn't reach the bottom
> > > - user didn't provide a large enough entries array
> > > 
> > > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done().
> > > 
> > > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can
> > > determine at build time whether the function is implemented.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Could you comment on why we need a reliable trace for live-patching? Are
> > we in any way reliant on the stack trace to patch something broken?
> 
> I tried to cover this comprehensively in patch 13/15 in
> Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt.  Does that answer your questions?
>

Yes, it answers my questions

Thanks,
Balbir Singh.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web