On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:56:48 -0500
"Madhavan T. Venkataraman" [off-list ref] wrote:

On 4/5/21 8:24 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

quoted

Hi Madhaven,

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 22:29:12 -0500
"Madhavan T. Venkataraman" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Check for kretprobe
===================

For functions with a kretprobe set up, probe code executes on entry
to the function and replaces the return address in the stack frame with a
kretprobe trampoline. Whenever the function returns, control is
transferred to the trampoline. The trampoline eventually returns to the
original return address.

A stack trace taken while executing in the function (or in functions that
get called from the function) will not show the original return address.
Similarly, a stack trace taken while executing in the trampoline itself
(and functions that get called from the trampoline) will not show the
original return address. This means that the caller of the probed function
will not show. This makes the stack trace unreliable.

Add the kretprobe trampoline to special_functions[].

FYI, each task contains a task->kretprobe_instances list that can
theoretically be consulted to find the orginal return address. But I am
not entirely sure how to safely traverse that list for stack traces
not on the current process. So, I have taken the easy way out.

For kretprobes, unwinding from the trampoline or kretprobe handler
shouldn't be a reliability concern for live patching, for similar
reasons as above.

Please see previous answer.

quoted

Otherwise, when unwinding from a blocked task which has
'kretprobe_trampoline' on the stack, the unwinder needs a way to get the
original return address.  Masami has been working on an interface to
make that possible for x86.  I assume something similar could be done
for arm64.

OK. Until that is available, this case needs to be addressed.

Actually, I've done that on arm64 :) See below patch.
(and I also have a similar code for arm32, what I'm considering is how
to unify x86/arm/arm64 kretprobe_find_ret_addr(), since those are very
similar.)

This is applicable on my x86 series v5

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/161676170650.330141.6214727134265514123.stgit@devnote2/ (local)

Thank you,

I took a brief look at your changes. Looks reasonable.

However, for now, I am going to include the kretprobe_trampoline in the special_functions[]
array until your changes are merged. At that point, it is just a matter of deleting
kretprobe_trampoline from the special_functions[] array. That is all.

I hope that is fine with everyone.

Agreed, that is reasonable unless my series is merged. 

Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu [off-list ref]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel