lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] x86: profiling: remove lock functions hack for !FRAME_POINTER
From
On 2023/4/11 3:34, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/9/23 19:22, Chen Zhongjin wrote:
>> Syzbot has been reporting the problem of stack-out-of-bounds in
>> profile_pc for a long time:
>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=84fe685c02cd112a2ac3
>>
>> profile_pc tries to get pc if current regs is inside lock function. For
>> !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER it used a hack way to get the pc from stack, which
>> is not work with ORC. It makes profile_pc read illeagal address, return
>> wrong result, and frequently triggers KASAN.
>>
>> Since lock profiling can be handled with much better other tools, It's
>> reasonable to remove lock functions hack for !FRAME_POINTER kernel.
> OK, so let me make sure I understand what's going on:
>
> 1. This whole issue is limited to kernel/profile.c which is what drives
> readprofile(8) and /proc/profile
> 2. This is removing code that got added in 2006:
> 0cb91a229364 ("[PATCH] i386: Account spinlocks to the caller during
> profiling for !FP kernels")
> 3. This was an OK hack back in the day, but it outright breaks today
> in some situations. KASAN also didn't exist in 2006.
Yes, and whether KASAN is enabled it can make problem.
Some lock_function will save registers on stack (this may not happen in
2006).
These registers can be recorded by profile and be read outside of kernel,
which is risky theoretically.
> 4. !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is probably even more rare today than it was in
> 2006
No. !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is more common today because of UNWINDER_ORC.
And that is why the bug is triggered more frequently.
> 5. Lock function caller information is available at _least_ from perf,
> maybe other places too?? (What "much better other tools" are there?)

Yes, it's basically about perf function graph.

> Given all that, this patch suggests that we can remove the stack peeking
> hack. The downside is that /proc/profile users will see their profiles
> pointing to the spinlock functions like they did in 2005. The upside is
> that we won't get any more KASAN reports.
>
> If anyone complains, I assume we're just going to tell them to run 'perf
> --call-graph' and to go away (which also probably didn't exist in 2006).
>
> If I got all that right, the end result seems sane to me. It would be
> _nice_ if you could make a more coherent changelog out of that and
> resend. Also, considering that your two "profile" issues are quite
> independent, you can probably just resend the two patches separately.
Thanks for review and I'll send another version to provide better details.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-04-12 09:02    [W:0.478 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site