Re: stack validation warning on lttng-modules bytecode interpreter

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:01:09PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jun 15, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Josh Poimboeuf jpoimboe@redhat.com wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:13:39PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> ----- On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Josh Poimboeuf jpoimboe@redhat.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:55:16PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> >> Hi Josh,
> >> >> 
> >> >> I notice that with gcc 6.1.1, kernel 4.6, with
> >> >> CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y, building lttng-modules master
> >> >> at commit 6c09dd94 gives this warning:
> >> >> 
> >> >> lttng-modules/lttng-filter-interpreter.o: warning: objtool:
> >> >> lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode()+0x58: sibling call from callable instruction
> >> >> with changed frame pointer
> >> >> 
> >> >> this object implements a bytecode interpreter using an explicit
> >> >> jump table (see
> >> >> https://github.com/lttng/lttng-modules/blob/master/lttng-filter-interpreter.c)
> >> >> 
> >> >> If I define "INTERPRETER_USE_SWITCH" at the top of the file,
> >> >> thus using the switch-case fallback implementation, the
> >> >> warning vanishes.
> >> >> 
> >> >> We use an explicit jump table rather than a switch case whenever
> >> >> possible for performance reasons.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I notice that tools/objtool/builtin-check.c needs to be aware of
> >> >> switch-cases transformed into jump tables by the compiler. Are
> >> >> explicit jump tables supported by the stack validator ? Do we
> >> >> need to add annotation to our code ?
> >> > 
> >> > Hi Mathieu,
> >> > 
> >> > Unfortunately objtool doesn't know how to validate this type of jump
> >> > table.  So to avoid the warning you'll need to add an annotation to tell
> >> > objtool to ignore it:
> >> > 
> >> >  STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode);
> >> > 
> >> > We had to annotate __bpf_prog_run() in the kernel for the same reason.
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the tip! Unfortunately it does not seem to work.
> >> 
> >> objdump -t lttng/lttng-filter-interpreter.o output gives:
> >> 
> >> 0000000000000000 l    d  __func_stack_frame_non_standard        0000000000000000
> >> __func_stack_frame_non_standard
> >> 0000000000000000 l     O __func_stack_frame_non_standard        0000000000000008
> >> __func_stack_frame_non_standard_lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode
> >> 
> >> Running objtool check (built in O0) in gdb on lttng-filter-interpreter.o
> >> built with the STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD define, it appears that the
> >> following function:
> >> 
> >> static bool ignore_func(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func)
> >> {
> >>         struct rela *rela;
> >>         struct instruction *insn;
> >> 
> >>         /* check for STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD */
> >>         if (file->whitelist && file->whitelist->rela)
> >>                 list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list)
> >>                         if (rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
> >>                             rela->addend == func->offset)
> >>                                 return true;
> >> 
> >>         /* check if it has a context switching instruction */
> >>         func_for_each_insn(file, func, insn)
> >>                 if (insn->type == INSN_CONTEXT_SWITCH)
> >>                         return true;
> >> 
> >>         return false;
> >> }
> >> 
> >> For lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode, while in the first list
> >> iteration:
> >> 
> >> (gdb) print rela->sym->sec
> >> $18 = (struct section *) 0x7ffff7e20010
> >> (gdb) print func->sec
> >> $19 = (struct section *) 0x7ffff7e20010
> >> 
> >> But
> >> 
> >> (gdb) print rela->addend
> >> $20 = 0
> >> (gdb) print func->offset
> >> $21 = 928
> >> 
> >> So for some reason it never match the ignore_func.
> >> This happens both when I build lttng-modules as a kernel module,
> >> and when I build it into the kernel image.
> >> 
> >> Any idea why ?
> > 
> > Hm, no idea.  Can you send me the object file?
> 
> Sure. See attached. Built from lttng-modules master branch
> commit 63155590 against a 4.6 kernel tree, with lttng-modules
> "built-in.sh" script executed targeting the kernel tree. Kernel
> config attached too.

Thanks, figured it out.  It was an objtool bug.  It was expecting the
macro to create a section symbol (STT_SECTION), but for some reason this
file's use of the macro creates a function symbol (STT_FUNC).  I'll
submit a fix upstream.  Here's the patch, FYI:


diff --git a/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c b/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
index e8a1e69..25d8031 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
@@ -122,10 +122,14 @@ static bool ignore_func(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func)
 
 	/* check for STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD */
 	if (file->whitelist && file->whitelist->rela)
-		list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list)
-			if (rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
+		list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list) {
+			if (rela->sym->type == STT_SECTION &&
+			    rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
 			    rela->addend == func->offset)
 				return true;
+			if (rela->sym->type == STT_FUNC && rela->sym == func)
+				return true;
+		}
 
 	/* check if it has a context switching instruction */
 	func_for_each_insn(file, func, insn)