[PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] Add ftrace direct call for arm64

[Xu Kuohai]

On 9/29/2022 12:42 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:49:58PM +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
>> On 9/27/2022 1:43 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 03:40:20PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/22 6:27 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
>>>>>> This series adds ftrace direct call for arm64, which is required to attach
>>>>>> bpf trampoline to fentry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although there is no agreement on how to support ftrace direct call on arm64,
>>>>>> no patch has been posted except the one I posted in [1], so this series
>>>>>> continues the work of [1] with the addition of long jump support. Now ftrace
>>>>>> direct call works regardless of the distance between the callsite and custom
>>>>>> trampoline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220518131638.3401509-2-xukuohai@huawei.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>> - Fix compile and runtime errors caused by ftrace_rec_arch_init
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220913063146.74750-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xu Kuohai (4):
>>>>>>      ftrace: Allow users to disable ftrace direct call
>>>>>>      arm64: ftrace: Support long jump for ftrace direct call
>>>>>>      arm64: ftrace: Add ftrace direct call support
>>>>>>      ftrace: Fix dead loop caused by direct call in ftrace selftest
>>>>>
>>>>> Given there's just a tiny fraction touching BPF JIT and most are around core arm64,
>>>>> it probably makes sense that this series goes via Catalin/Will through arm64 tree
>>>>> instead of bpf-next if it looks good to them. Catalin/Will, thoughts (Ack + bpf-next
>>>>> could work too, but I'd presume this just results in merge conflicts)?
>>>>
>>>> I think it makes sense for the series to go via the arm64 tree but I'd
>>>> like Mark to have a look at the ftrace changes first.
>>>
>>>>  From a quick scan, I still don't think this is quite right, and as it stands I
>>> believe this will break backtracing (as the instructions before the function
>>> entry point will not be symbolized correctly, getting in the way of
>>> RELIABLE_STACKTRACE). I think I was insufficiently clear with my earlier
>>> feedback there, as I have a mechanism in mind that wa a little simpler.
>>
>> Thanks for the review. I have some thoughts about reliable stacktrace.
>>
>> If PC is not in the range of literal_call, stacktrace works as before without
>> changes.
>>
>> If PC is in the range of literal_call, for example, interrupted by an
>> irq, I think there are 2 problems:
>>
>> 1. Caller LR is not pushed to the stack yet, so caller's address and name
>>     will be missing from the backtrace.
>>
>> 2. Since PC is not in func's address range, no symbol name will be found, so
>>     func name is also missing.
>>
>> Problem 1 is not introduced by this patchset, but the occurring probability
>> may be increased by this patchset. I think this problem should be addressed by
>> a reliable stacktrace scheme, such as ORC on x86.
> 
> I agree problem 1 is not introduced by this patch set; I have plans fo how to
> address that for reliable stacktrace based on identifying the ftrace
> trampoline. This is one of the reasons I do not want direct calls, as
> identifying all direct call trampolines is going to be very painful and slow,
> whereas identifying a statically allocated ftrace trampoline is far simpler.
> 
>> Problem 2 is indeed introduced by this patchset. I think there are at least 3
>> ways to deal with it:
> 
> What I would like to do here, as mentioned previously in other threads, is to
> avoid direct calls, and implement "FTRACE_WITH_OPS", where we can associate
> each patch-site with a specific set of ops, and invoke that directly from the
> regular ftrace trampoline.
> 
> With that, the patch site would look like:
> 
> 	pre_func_literal:
> 		NOP		// Patched to a pointer to
> 		NOP		// ftrace_ops
> 	func:
> 		< optional BTI here >
> 		NOP		// Patched to MOV X9, LR
> 		NOP		// Patched to a BL to the ftrace trampoline
> 
> ... then in the ftrace trampoline we can recover the ops pointer at a negative
> offset from the LR based on the LR, and invoke the ops from there (passing a
> struct ftrace_regs with the saved regs).
> 
> That way the patch-site is less significantly affected, and there's no impact
> to backtracing. That gets most of the benefit of the direct calls avoiding the
> ftrace ops list traversal, without having to do anything special at all. That
> should be much easier to maintain, too.
> 
> I started implementing that before LPC (and you can find some branches on my
> kernel.org repo), but I haven't yet had the time to rebase those and sort out
> the remaining issues:
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/ftrace/per-callsite-ops
> 
> Note that as a prerequisite for that I also want to reduce the set of registers
> we save/restore down to the set required by our calling convention, as the
> existing pt_regs is both large and generally unsound (since we can not and do
> not fill in many of the fields we only acquire at an exception boundary).
> That'll further reduce the ftrace overhead generally, and remove the needs for
> the two trampolines we currently have. I have a WIP at:
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/ftrace/minimal-regs
> 
> I intend to get back to both of those shortly (along with some related bits for
> kretprobes and stacktracing); I just haven't had much time recently due to
> other work and illness.
> 
>> 1. Add a symbol name for literal_call.
> 
> That'll require a number of invasive changes to make RELIABLE_STACKTRACE work,
> so I don't think we want to do that.
> 
>> 2. Hack the backtrace routine, if no symbol name found for a PC during backtrace,
>>     we can check if the PC is in literal_call, then adjust PC and try again.
> 
> The problem is that the existing symbolization code doesn't know the length of
> the prior symbol, so it will find *some* symbol associated with the previous
> function rather than finding no symbol.
> 
> To bodge around this we'dd need to special-case each patchable-function-entry
> site in symbolization, which is going to be painful and slow down unwinding
> unless we try to fix this up at boot-time or compile time.
> 
>> 3. Move literal_call to the func's address range, for example:
>>
>>          a. Compile with -fpatchable-function-entry=7
>>          func:
>>                  BTI C
>>                  NOP
>>                  NOP
>>                  NOP
>>                  NOP
>>                  NOP
>>                  NOP
>>                  NOP
> 
> This is a non-starter. We are not going to add 7 NOPs at the start of every
> function.
> 

Looks like we could just add 3 NOPs to function entry, like this:

1. At startup or when nothing attached, patch callsite to:

         literal:
                 .quad dummy_tramp
         func:
                 BTI C
                 MOV X9, LR
                 NOP
                 NOP
                 ...

2. When target is in range, patch callsite to

         literal:
                 .quad dummy_tramp
         func:
                 BTI C
                 MOV X9, LR
                 NOP
                 BL custom_trampoline
                 ...


3. Whe target is out of range, patch callsite to

         literal:
                 .quad custom_trampoline
         func:
                 BTI C
                 MOV X9, LR
                 LDR X16, literal
                 BLR X16
                 ...


> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
> .