[RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation

madvenka@linux.microsoft.com posted 20 patches 1 month ago
arch/Kconfig                                  |   4 +-
arch/arm64/Kconfig                            |   7 +
arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug                      |  21 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h            |  42 ++
arch/arm64/include/asm/module.h               |  10 +-
arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h            |  35 ++
arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h           |   9 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h          |   4 +-
arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h         | 104 ++++
arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S              |  23 +
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S                     |   3 +
arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c                    |  16 +
arch/arm64/kernel/module.c                    |  13 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes_trampoline.S |   3 +
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c                     |   2 +
arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c                    |   4 +
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c                | 153 ++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S               |   3 +
arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h              |  37 +-
arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h                 |   5 -
arch/x86/include/asm/unwind_hints.h           |  85 ++++
arch/x86/kernel/module.c                      |   7 +-
arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c                  | 258 +---------
arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S                 |   2 +-
.../asm => include/asm-generic}/orc_lookup.h  |  42 ++
include/linux/ftrace.h                        |   4 +
include/linux/objtool.h                       |  73 +--
include/linux/orc_entry.h                     |  39 ++
kernel/Makefile                               |   2 +
kernel/orc_lookup.c                           | 261 ++++++++++
scripts/Makefile                              |   4 +-
scripts/Makefile.build                        |   4 +
scripts/link-vmlinux.sh                       |   7 +
tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h      |  35 ++
tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h   | 104 ++++
tools/arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h        |  37 +-
tools/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind_hints.h     | 147 ++++++
tools/include/linux/objtool.h                 |  73 +--
tools/include/linux/orc_entry.h               |  39 ++
tools/objtool/Build                           |  16 +
tools/objtool/Makefile                        |   6 +-
tools/objtool/arch/arm64/Build                |   2 +
tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c             | 389 +++++++++++++++
.../arch/arm64/include/arch/cfi_regs.h        |  12 +
tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/elf.h   |   9 +
.../arch/arm64/include/arch/endianness.h      |   9 +
tools/objtool/arch/arm64/orc.c                |  92 ++++
tools/objtool/arch/x86/Build                  |   1 +
tools/objtool/arch/x86/include/arch/elf.h     |   1 +
tools/objtool/arch/x86/orc.c                  | 150 ++++++
tools/objtool/builtin-fpv.c                   |  79 +++
tools/objtool/cfi.c                           | 108 ++++
tools/objtool/check.c                         | 460 ------------------
tools/objtool/decode.c                        | 106 ++++
tools/objtool/fpv.c                           | 272 +++++++++++
tools/objtool/include/objtool/arch.h          |   1 +
tools/objtool/include/objtool/builtin.h       |   1 +
tools/objtool/include/objtool/cfi.h           |  12 +
tools/objtool/include/objtool/check.h         |  74 +--
tools/objtool/include/objtool/endianness.h    |   1 +
tools/objtool/include/objtool/insn.h          | 125 +++++
tools/objtool/include/objtool/objtool.h       |   2 +
tools/objtool/include/objtool/orc.h           |  18 +
tools/objtool/insn.c                          | 197 ++++++++
tools/objtool/objtool.c                       |  12 +-
tools/objtool/orc_dump.c                      |  63 +--
tools/objtool/orc_gen.c                       |  89 +---
tools/objtool/sync-check.sh                   |  10 +
tools/objtool/unwind_hints.c                  |  91 ++++
tools/objtool/weak.c                          |   5 +
70 files changed, 3005 insertions(+), 1129 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h
rename {arch/x86/include/asm => include/asm-generic}/orc_lookup.h (51%)
create mode 100644 include/linux/orc_entry.h
create mode 100644 kernel/orc_lookup.c
create mode 100644 tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h
create mode 100644 tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h
create mode 100644 tools/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind_hints.h
create mode 100644 tools/include/linux/orc_entry.h
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/Build
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/cfi_regs.h
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/elf.h
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/endianness.h
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/orc.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/x86/orc.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/builtin-fpv.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/cfi.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/decode.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/fpv.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/include/objtool/insn.h
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/include/objtool/orc.h
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/insn.c
create mode 100644 tools/objtool/unwind_hints.c
[RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by madvenka@linux.microsoft.com 1 month ago
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

Introduction
============

The livepatch feature requires an unwinder that can provide a reliable stack
trace. General requirements for a reliable unwinder are described in this
document from Mark Rutland:

	Documentation/livepatch/reliable-stacktrace.rst

The requirements have two parts:

1. The unwinder must be enhanced with certain features. E.g.,

	- Identifying successful termination of stack trace
	- Identifying unwindable and non-unwindable code
	- Identifying interrupts and exceptions occurring in the frame pointer
	  prolog and epilog
	- Identifying features such as kretprobe and ftrace graph tracing
	  that can modify the return address stored on the stack
	- Identifying corrupted/unreliable stack contents
	- Architecture-specific items that can render a stack trace unreliable
	  at certain points in code

	Some of these features are already in the arm64 unwinder. I am pursuing
	the rest in another patch series. This is work in progress. The latest
	submission as of this writing is here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t

2. Validation of the frame pointer

	This assumes that the unwinder is based on the frame pointer (FP).
	The actual frame pointer that the unwinder uses cannot just be
	assumed to be correct. It needs to be validated somehow.

	This patch series is to address this requirement.

Validation of the FP (aka STACK_VALIDATION)
====================

The current approach in Linux is to use objtool, a build time tool, for this
purpose. When configured, objtool is invoked on every relocatable object file
during kernel build. It performs static analysis of the code in each file. It
walks the instructions in every function and notes the changes to the stack
pointer (SP) and the frame pointer (FP). It makes sure that the changes are in
accordance with the ABI rules. There are also a lot of other checks that
Objtool performs. Once objtool completes successfully, the kernel can then be
used for livepatch purposes.

Objtool can have uses other than just FP validation. For instance, it can check
control flow integrity during its analysis.

Problem
=======

Objtool is complex and highly architecture-dependent. There are a lot of
different checks in objtool that all of the code in the kernel must pass
before livepatch can be enabled. If a check fails, it must be corrected
before we can proceed. Sometimes, the kernel code needs to be fixed.
Sometimes, it is a compiler bug that needs to be fixed. The challenge is
also to prove that all the work is complete for an architecture.

As such, it presents a great challenge to enable livepatch for an
architecture.

A different approach
====================

I would like to propose a different approach for FP validation. I would
like to be able to enable livepatch for an architecture as is. That is,
without "fixing" the kernel or the compiler for it:

There are two steps in this:

1. Objtool walks all the functions as usual. It computes the stack and
   frame pointer offsets at each instruction as usual. It generates ORC
   records and stores them in special sections as usual. This is simple
   enough to do.

   What Objtool will not do is perform any checks for ABI compliance, etc.

2. The unwinder in the kernel retrieves the ORC record for each return
   address in a stack trace and computes the frame pointer from it. It
   compares the computed frame pointer with the actual frame pointer. If
   there is a match, the frame is reliable. If not, it isn't. A stack trace
   is reliable if every single frame in it is reliable.

   To summarize, the frame pointer validation is done dynamically instead
   of statically.

Using this scheme, the unwinder can always know what kernel code is reliable
for unwind and what is not. This is the requirement for livepatch.

Instruction decoder
===================

To do this, an instruction decoder needs to be implemented. I have implemented
a simple, table-driven decoder for ARM64. Only a subset of the instructions
needs to be fully decoded for this purpose:

	- Load-Store instructions
	- Add/Sub/Mov instructions
	- Branch instructions
	- Call instructions
	- Return instructions

The rest of the instructions are either dont-care from an unwind perspective
or unexpected from the compiler. I have added checks for the unexpected ones
to catch them if the compiler ever generates them.

This decoder is simpler than a full-fledged one. But if a full-fledged one
is ever implemented, my decoder can be subsumed by it.

Code reorganization and reuse
=============================

Stack validation scheme
-----------------------

Currently, the stack validation scheme supported in Objtool is static stack
validation. Static stack validation is performed in check.c. There is a lot
of code in check.c that should be shared with other validation schemes such
as the dynamic FP validation scheme that I am proposing. Accordingly, I have
moved that code into separate files:

	- Code that walks instructions and decodes them
	- Code that manages instructions
	- CFI related code
	- Code that handles unwind hints

So, all of this is shared across all architectures and validation schemes.

Architecture-dependent code
---------------------------

Currently, the ORC definitions and code are X86-specific. I have separated
out the architecture-specific stuff from the generic stuff and placed
them in appropriate files so other architectures can share.

So, these are the architecture-specific parts that need to be supplied for
a new architecture for my proposal. Everything else is shared.

	- Instruction decoder as mentioned above
	- ORC register definitions
	- ORC support functions
	- Unwind hint support
	- Invoke ORC init from kernel initialization code
	- Invoke ORC init from module initialization code
	- Add ORC_UNWIND_TABLE to kernel data in vmlinux.lds.S
	- Modify the unwinder to use ORC data to validate the frame pointer
	- Add kernel config definitions for reliable stack trace and livepatch

Other than the decoder, all of this is very simple to do. Just follow the
example in ARM64.

For ARM64, the decoder turned out to be fairly simple. I cannot speak to
other architectures.

sorttable
---------

At build time, the ORC tables in special sections are sorted so that the
kernel does not have to spend time sorting them. The tables need to be
sorted for binary search. The sorttable program works without any change
in my proposal as well.

FP prolog, epilog, leaf functions, generated code, etc
======================================================

If the unwinder is not able to find an ORC record for a given instruction
address, it considers the code to be unreliable from an unwind perspective.
This enables the unwinder to deal with:

	- Sections of code that Objtool ignores. E.g., on ARM64, .head.text
	  is ignored.

	- Generated code that will not have any ORC records.

If the unwinder finds an ORC record, but the computed frame pointer does not
match the actual one, it considers the code to be unreliable from an unwind
perspective. This enables the unwinder to deal with:

	- Interrupts/exceptions in frame pointer prologs and epilogs.

	- Interrupts/exceptions in leaf functions that don't have a frame
	  setup.

	- Compiler not setting up the frame pointer properly before calling
	  a function. E.g., if inline assembly code occurs at the beginning
	  of a function and it contains a call.

Assembly functions
==================

Objtool does not walk SYM_CODE functions as they are low-level functions
that don't follow ABI rules or functions that manipulate register state
in such a way that unwind is unreliable. For these the ORC records will
show that the frame offset is 0. So, the unwinder will be able to tell that
they are unreliable for unwind.

As for SYM_FUNC functions, Objtool will walk them and compute ORC. However,
currently, most of the SYM_FUNC functions in ARM64 do not setup a frame.
So, these will look unreliable to the unwinder. While this will not impact
the ability to do livepatch, I plan to submit a separate patch series to add
a frame pointer prolog and epilog to many of these functions. This is to
reduce the number of retries during the livepatch process.

Unwind hints
============

Now, there are certain points in assembly code that we would like to unwind
through reliably. Like interrupt and exception handlers. This is mainly for
getting reliable stack traces in these cases and reducing the number of
retries during the livepatch process. For these, unwind hints can be placed
at strategic points in assembly code. Only a small number of these hints
should be needed.

In this work, I have defined the following unwind hints so stack traces that
contain these can be done reliably:

	- Exception handlers
	- Interrupt handlers
	- FTrace tracer functions
	- FTrace graph return prepare code
	- FTrace callsites
	- Kretprobe Trampoline

Unwind hints are collected in a special section. Objtool converts unwind hints
to ORC data just like the CFI based ones. The unwinder processes unwind hints
to handle special cases mentioned above.

Size of the memory consumed within the kernel for this feature
==============================================================

This depends on the amount of code in the kernel which, in turn, depends on
the number of configs turned on. E.g., on the kernel on my arm64 system, the
ORC data size for vmlinux is about 2MB.

GitHub repository
=================

My github repo for this version is here:

https://github.com/madvenka786/linux/tree/orc_v2

Please feel free to clone and check it out. And, please let me know if you
find any issues.

Testing
=======

- I have run all of the livepatch selftests successfully. I have written a
  couple of extra selftests myself which I will be posting separately.

- I have run ftrace tests and taken stacktraces from tracer functions and
  graph trace functions to make sure that unwinding through ftrace entry
  code is reliable.

- I have run a kretprobe test to make sure that unwinding through the
  kretprobe trampoline is reliable.

- I have a test driver to induce a NULL pointer exception to make sure
  that unwinding through exception handlers is reliable.

- I use the test driver to create a timer to make sure that unwinding through
  the timer IRQ is reliable.

- I call the unwinder from different places during boot to make sure that
  the unwinding in each of those cases is reliable.

TBD
===

- I need to perform more rigorous testing with different scenarios. This
  is work in progress. Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.

- I plan to add a return address check in the unwinder. The unwinder will
  decode the instruction at the call site for each frame and make sure that
  it is a valid call instruction. This is just a paranoid check to catch it
  if Objtool generates an incorrect ORC entry or if the FP is corrupted.
---
Changelog:

v2:
	From Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>:
	==========================================

	DWARF is not proven to be reliable. So, depending on it for livepatch
	is a problem.

		I have removed the DWARF part from the patch series. Instead,
		I have implemented the minimum ARM64 instruction decoder
		required for this work. I have implemented code to walk all
		the instructions in an object file and generate ORC data.
		The ORC data will be used by the unwinder to compute a
		frame pointer and validate the actual frame pointer with it.

	Unwind hints are a problem from a maintenance perspective.

		This is true. But there are only a few unwind hints that I
		have introduced in this work. Also, if an unwind hint becomes
		outdated, the dynamic frame pointer check will catch it so
		that the unwinder will know that it is unreliable.
	
	Inline ASM code can cause problems that DWARF cannot catch.

		Now that I walk all of the instructions, this problem is solved.
		In version 2, the ORC data is generated based on the actual
		machine code in the object file. So, the data reflects the
		actual code. Unreliability in any part of the code will be
		caught by the unwinder when it looks up the ORC data and
		performs a frame pointer check.

	Rename kernel code and data that currently contains the name dwarf
	to avoid confusion.

		This problem is solved as I have dropped DWARF altogether.

	Try to reuse the existing ORC data format and code as much as possible.

		I have reorganized the code in the following ways:

		- I have placed code that was in check.c in separate files
		  so that different stack validation schemes can share the code.

		- I have separated architecture-specific code and structures
		  from generic ones so that different architectures can share
		  common stuff.

		- I am using the ORC structure as it is currently defined. The
		  only cosmetic change I have done is to rename the fields
		  bp_* to fp_* (FP for frame pointer).

		- I completely reuse the ORC definitions and code. E.g., in
		  the kernel the ORC lookup code is shared across architectures.

	Objtool contains other features which other architectures are looking
	into. So, should we just implement static stack validation for other
	architectures or use dynamic FP validation just for the livepatch
	feature?

		For one thing, it will take a long time before the static
		validation scheme can even be proved to be complete on ARM64.
		Livepatching is an immediate need for security fixes.

		Also, since I am using the traditional approach in v2 of
		walking the instructions, computing CFI, generating ORC, etc,
		my current approach can be combined with the traditional
		approach. Dynamic FP validation can be offered either as an
		alternative to static stack validation or as something that
		can be combined with static stack validation to make the
		feature even more robust. Objtool can always have bugs and
		there can be bad ORC data.

	From Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
	===========================================

	Please use/extend ORC.

		Done. Please see my description above.

	Why deviate from the traditional approach of static stack validation?

		I have given the answer above.

	Mandating DWARF sucks. Compile times are so much worse with DWARVES.

		I have removed DWARF from the work. I use the traditional
		approach of decoding the instructions and computing the
		same data as DWARF but in ORC format.

	DWARF does not cover assembly code.

		In v2, I walk all of the functions including assembly functions.
		SYM_CODE functions are not walked by Objtool anyway. So, I
		don't do that. But I walk all the SYM_FUNC functions. Currently,
		only a few SYM_FUNC functions in ARM64 have a proper FP prolog
		and epilog. So, I plan to submit a separate patch series to
		add an FP prolog and epilog for other SYM_FUNC functions.
		But this is only to reduce retries during the livepatch process.
		It is not absolutely required for livepatch to work. But I
		plan to address this separately.

	Compilers don't consider DWARF generation to be a correctness issue.

		I totally agree. I have myself found 4 bugs that I have had
		to compensate for. So, I have dropped DWARF.

	From Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>:
	=============================================

	One cannot depend on compilers to generate correct DWARF info.

		Agreed. I have dropped DWARF.

	DWARF does not cover assembly. So, what if too many assembly
	functions exist so that the livepatch process can encounter too
	many retries?

		DWARF has been dropped. The code in version 2 walks all the
		functions including assembly functions.

	There is a corner case where an interrupt or an exception can happen
	in FP prologs/epilogs. The stack trace would be unreliable.

		Yes. This will be caught by the reliable unwinder in the kernel
		in my scheme when it retrieves the ORC data and validates
		the actual frame pointer. The validation will fail and the
		stack trace will be considered unreliable.

v1:
	- Introduced the livepatch feature based on DWARF Call Frame
	  Information generated by the compilers.

Previous versions and discussion
================================

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220407202518.19780-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com/T/#t

Madhavan T. Venkataraman (20):
  objtool: Reorganize CFI code
  objtool: Reorganize instruction-related code
  objtool: Move decode_instructions() to a separate file
  objtool: Reorganize Unwind hint code
  objtool: Reorganize ORC types
  objtool: Reorganize ORC code
  objtool: Reorganize ORC kernel code
  objtool: arm64: Implement decoder for FP validation
  objtool: arm64: Implement command to invoke the decoder
  objtool: arm64: Compute destinations for call and jump instructions
  objtool: arm64: Walk instructions and compute CFI for each instruction
  objtool: arm64: Generate ORC data from CFI for object files
  objtool: arm64: Dump ORC data present in object files
  objtool: arm64: Add unwind hint support
  arm64: Add unwind hints to specific points in code
  arm64: Add kernel and module support for ORC
  arm64: Build the kernel with ORC information
  arm64: unwinder: Add a reliability check in the unwinder based on ORC
  arm64: Miscellaneous changes required for enabling livepatch
  arm64: Enable livepatch for ARM64

 arch/Kconfig                                  |   4 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                            |   7 +
 arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug                      |  21 +
 arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h            |  42 ++
 arch/arm64/include/asm/module.h               |  10 +-
 arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h            |  35 ++
 arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h           |   9 +
 arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h          |   4 +-
 arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h         | 104 ++++
 arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S              |  23 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S                     |   3 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c                    |  16 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/module.c                    |  13 +-
 arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes_trampoline.S |   3 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c                     |   2 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c                    |   4 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c                | 153 ++++++
 arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S               |   3 +
 arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h              |  37 +-
 arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h                 |   5 -
 arch/x86/include/asm/unwind_hints.h           |  85 ++++
 arch/x86/kernel/module.c                      |   7 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c                  | 258 +---------
 arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S                 |   2 +-
 .../asm => include/asm-generic}/orc_lookup.h  |  42 ++
 include/linux/ftrace.h                        |   4 +
 include/linux/objtool.h                       |  73 +--
 include/linux/orc_entry.h                     |  39 ++
 kernel/Makefile                               |   2 +
 kernel/orc_lookup.c                           | 261 ++++++++++
 scripts/Makefile                              |   4 +-
 scripts/Makefile.build                        |   4 +
 scripts/link-vmlinux.sh                       |   7 +
 tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h      |  35 ++
 tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h   | 104 ++++
 tools/arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h        |  37 +-
 tools/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind_hints.h     | 147 ++++++
 tools/include/linux/objtool.h                 |  73 +--
 tools/include/linux/orc_entry.h               |  39 ++
 tools/objtool/Build                           |  16 +
 tools/objtool/Makefile                        |   6 +-
 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/Build                |   2 +
 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c             | 389 +++++++++++++++
 .../arch/arm64/include/arch/cfi_regs.h        |  12 +
 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/elf.h   |   9 +
 .../arch/arm64/include/arch/endianness.h      |   9 +
 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/orc.c                |  92 ++++
 tools/objtool/arch/x86/Build                  |   1 +
 tools/objtool/arch/x86/include/arch/elf.h     |   1 +
 tools/objtool/arch/x86/orc.c                  | 150 ++++++
 tools/objtool/builtin-fpv.c                   |  79 +++
 tools/objtool/cfi.c                           | 108 ++++
 tools/objtool/check.c                         | 460 ------------------
 tools/objtool/decode.c                        | 106 ++++
 tools/objtool/fpv.c                           | 272 +++++++++++
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/arch.h          |   1 +
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/builtin.h       |   1 +
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/cfi.h           |  12 +
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/check.h         |  74 +--
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/endianness.h    |   1 +
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/insn.h          | 125 +++++
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/objtool.h       |   2 +
 tools/objtool/include/objtool/orc.h           |  18 +
 tools/objtool/insn.c                          | 197 ++++++++
 tools/objtool/objtool.c                       |  12 +-
 tools/objtool/orc_dump.c                      |  63 +--
 tools/objtool/orc_gen.c                       |  89 +---
 tools/objtool/sync-check.sh                   |  10 +
 tools/objtool/unwind_hints.c                  |  91 ++++
 tools/objtool/weak.c                          |   5 +
 70 files changed, 3005 insertions(+), 1129 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/livepatch.h
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h
 rename {arch/x86/include/asm => include/asm-generic}/orc_lookup.h (51%)
 create mode 100644 include/linux/orc_entry.h
 create mode 100644 kernel/orc_lookup.c
 create mode 100644 tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/orc_types.h
 create mode 100644 tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/unwind_hints.h
 create mode 100644 tools/arch/x86/include/asm/unwind_hints.h
 create mode 100644 tools/include/linux/orc_entry.h
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/Build
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/cfi_regs.h
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/elf.h
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/include/arch/endianness.h
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/arm64/orc.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/x86/orc.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/builtin-fpv.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/cfi.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/decode.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/fpv.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/include/objtool/insn.h
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/include/objtool/orc.h
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/insn.c
 create mode 100644 tools/objtool/unwind_hints.c


base-commit: 3123109284176b1532874591f7c81f3837bbdc17
-- 
2.25.1
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Chen Zhongjin 1 month ago
Hi Madvenka,

I have a brief look at your patch and the idea that using CFA metadata to
validate FP is reasonable to me. And I found a problem when I used 'pv dump' to
check the orc value and I replied your commit 11/20 for that.

I think it's not necessary that you rewrite the arm64 decoder(there is already a
decoder in my patch) and insn check(objtool check can just make it) by yourself.
Especially it is too duplicated to have two check in objtool.

For me it's also a trouble that objtool runs too much unnecessary work. I advise
that we should move some check for x86 as arch specific and refactor the cmdline
options, they doesn't turn off everything perfectly now.

Other than that I have an advise: We only use orc for reliable stacktrace and
normal FP unwind doesn't depends on it. Should we only load these data for
livepatch (or other scenario needs reliable stacktrace)? It can save the memory
and time consuming for kernel.

That's all. And if you don't mind, can I incorporate some commit into my set?
Appreciate for it.

Best,
Chen
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Madhavan T. Venkataraman 3 weeks, 6 days ago
Thanks for taking the time to review my patches.

On 5/24/22 09:24, Chen Zhongjin wrote:
> Hi Madvenka,
> 
> I have a brief look at your patch and the idea that using CFA metadata to
> validate FP is reasonable to me. And I found a problem when I used 'pv dump' to
> check the orc value and I replied your commit 11/20 for that.
> 

I have responded to that comment in another email. Please take a look.


> I think it's not necessary that you rewrite the arm64 decoder(there is already a
> decoder in my patch) and insn check(objtool check can just make it) by yourself.

> 

This is a fair point. I will think about this a little bit and respond to this in a separate email.

> For me it's also a trouble that objtool runs too much unnecessary work. I advise
> that we should move some check for x86 as arch specific and refactor the cmdline
> options, they doesn't turn off everything perfectly now.
> 

So, Josh has done what you have mentioned. He has reorganized all of that code.
I am working on syncing up to his changes. I will send out version 3.

> Other than that I have an advise: We only use orc for reliable stacktrace and
> normal FP unwind doesn't depends on it. Should we only load these data for
> livepatch (or other scenario needs reliable stacktrace)? It can save the memory
> and time consuming for kernel.
> 

Yes. For ARM64, that is what I am trying to do. STACK_VALIDATION is optional and it
is off by default. It needs to be turned on only if reliable stack trace is required.

> That's all. And if you don't mind, can I incorporate some commit into my set?
> Appreciate for it.
> 

Please feel free to use any and all of my code. I am also looking at merging our two
decoders so that there is only one decoder. I need to think about this a little bit.
So, stay tuned.

Thanks!

Madhavan
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Ivan T. Ivanov 1 week, 3 days ago
Hi Madhavan,

And thank you for your work on this!

> My github repo for this version is here:
> 
> https://github.com/madvenka786/linux/tree/orc_v2
> 
> Please feel free to clone and check it out. And, please let me know if you
> find any issues.
> 

<snip>

> 
> TBD
> ===
> 
> - I need to perform more rigorous testing with different scenarios. This
>   is work in progress. Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.
> 

I have run following [1] livepatch tests on kernel build from your repository.
Overall results looks good, but when I run klp_tc_13.shI there is something which
I still can not understand completely. It is because of kaslr.

[   36.817617] livepatch: enabling patch 'klp_tc_13_livepatch'
[   36.819602] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
[   36.820113] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
[   36.820643] ------------[ ftrace bug ]------------
[   36.821172] ftrace failed to modify
[   36.821173] [<ffffdde931176804>] orig_do_read_active_livepatch_id+0x4/0xa8 [klp_test_support_mod]
[   36.822465]  actual:   e4:01:00:94
[   36.822821] Updating ftrace call site to call a different ftrace function
[   36.823537] ftrace record flags: e4000002
[   36.823953]  (2) R
[   36.823953]  expected tramp: ffffdde96882e224
[   36.824619] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[   36.825125] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 950 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2085 ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
[   36.826027] Modules linked in: klp_tc_13_livepatch(OK+) klp_test_support_mod(O) crct10dif_ce
[   36.826943] CPU: 0 PID: 950 Comm: insmod Tainted: G           O  K   5.18.0-rc1-00020-g1ffee6fdcfda #39
[   36.827987] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
[   36.828546] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[   36.829348] pc : ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
[   36.829790] lr : ftrace_bug+0x228/0x280
[   36.830224] sp : ffff8000084038e0
[   36.830620] x29: ffff8000084038e0 x28: ffff00000485a920 x27: ffffdde931176804
[   36.831419] x26: ffffdde93117d1a0 x25: ffff00000485a900 x24: ffffdde96aea1000
[   36.832226] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 0000000000000001 x21: ffffdde96a124da0
[   36.833024] x20: ffff0000045620f0 x19: ffffdde96b54a358 x18: ffffffffffffffff
[   36.833818] x17: 5b20386178302f34 x16: 78302b64695f6863 x15: ffffdde96a3078f8
[   36.834621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 3432326532383836 x12: ffffdde96ae9b3d8
[   36.835425] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffffdde96891305c
[   36.836221] x8 : c0000000ffffefff x7 : 0000000000017fe8 x6 : ffffdde96ae83398
[   36.837023] x5 : 0000000000057fa8 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 00000000ffffefff
[   36.837836] x2 : e32439832ffb9700 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000022
[   36.838635] Call trace:
[   36.838923]  ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
[   36.839319]  ftrace_replace_code+0xa0/0xb8
[   36.839768]  ftrace_modify_all_code+0xc0/0x160
[   36.840273]  arch_ftrace_update_code+0x14/0x20
[   36.840780]  ftrace_run_update_code+0x24/0x78
[   36.841283]  ftrace_startup_enable+0x50/0x60
[   36.841781]  ftrace_startup+0xb4/0x178
[   36.842214]  register_ftrace_function+0x68/0x88
[   36.842738]  klp_patch_object+0x1c8/0x330
[   36.843196]  klp_enable_patch+0x468/0x828


Regards,
Ivan

[1] https://github.com/lpechacek/qa_test_klp
    For this to work on aarch64 you will need fixes from PR#13
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Madhavan T. Venkataraman 1 week, 3 days ago

On 6/15/22 07:18, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> Hi Madhavan,
> 
> And thank you for your work on this!
> 
>> My github repo for this version is here:
>>
>> https://github.com/madvenka786/linux/tree/orc_v2
>>
>> Please feel free to clone and check it out. And, please let me know if you
>> find any issues.
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>
>> TBD
>> ===
>>
>> - I need to perform more rigorous testing with different scenarios. This
>>   is work in progress. Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.
>>
> 
> I have run following [1] livepatch tests on kernel build from your repository.
> Overall results looks good, but when I run klp_tc_13.shI there is something which
> I still can not understand completely. It is because of kaslr.
> 
> [   36.817617] livepatch: enabling patch 'klp_tc_13_livepatch'
> [   36.819602] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
> [   36.820113] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
> [   36.820643] ------------[ ftrace bug ]------------
> [   36.821172] ftrace failed to modify
> [   36.821173] [<ffffdde931176804>] orig_do_read_active_livepatch_id+0x4/0xa8 [klp_test_support_mod]
> [   36.822465]  actual:   e4:01:00:94
> [   36.822821] Updating ftrace call site to call a different ftrace function
> [   36.823537] ftrace record flags: e4000002
> [   36.823953]  (2) R
> [   36.823953]  expected tramp: ffffdde96882e224
> [   36.824619] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   36.825125] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 950 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2085 ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> [   36.826027] Modules linked in: klp_tc_13_livepatch(OK+) klp_test_support_mod(O) crct10dif_ce
> [   36.826943] CPU: 0 PID: 950 Comm: insmod Tainted: G           O  K   5.18.0-rc1-00020-g1ffee6fdcfda #39
> [   36.827987] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> [   36.828546] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> [   36.829348] pc : ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> [   36.829790] lr : ftrace_bug+0x228/0x280
> [   36.830224] sp : ffff8000084038e0
> [   36.830620] x29: ffff8000084038e0 x28: ffff00000485a920 x27: ffffdde931176804
> [   36.831419] x26: ffffdde93117d1a0 x25: ffff00000485a900 x24: ffffdde96aea1000
> [   36.832226] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 0000000000000001 x21: ffffdde96a124da0
> [   36.833024] x20: ffff0000045620f0 x19: ffffdde96b54a358 x18: ffffffffffffffff
> [   36.833818] x17: 5b20386178302f34 x16: 78302b64695f6863 x15: ffffdde96a3078f8
> [   36.834621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 3432326532383836 x12: ffffdde96ae9b3d8
> [   36.835425] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffffdde96891305c
> [   36.836221] x8 : c0000000ffffefff x7 : 0000000000017fe8 x6 : ffffdde96ae83398
> [   36.837023] x5 : 0000000000057fa8 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 00000000ffffefff
> [   36.837836] x2 : e32439832ffb9700 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000022
> [   36.838635] Call trace:
> [   36.838923]  ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> [   36.839319]  ftrace_replace_code+0xa0/0xb8
> [   36.839768]  ftrace_modify_all_code+0xc0/0x160
> [   36.840273]  arch_ftrace_update_code+0x14/0x20
> [   36.840780]  ftrace_run_update_code+0x24/0x78
> [   36.841283]  ftrace_startup_enable+0x50/0x60
> [   36.841781]  ftrace_startup+0xb4/0x178
> [   36.842214]  register_ftrace_function+0x68/0x88
> [   36.842738]  klp_patch_object+0x1c8/0x330
> [   36.843196]  klp_enable_patch+0x468/0x828
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ivan
> 
> [1] https://github.com/lpechacek/qa_test_klp
>     For this to work on aarch64 you will need fixes from PR#13

Thank you so much for taking the time to try it out!
I saw Mark's reply to this.

Appreciate it!

Madhavan
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Mark Rutland 1 week, 3 days ago
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 03:18:44PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> I have run following [1] livepatch tests on kernel build from your repository.
> Overall results looks good, but when I run klp_tc_13.shI there is something which
> I still can not understand completely. It is because of kaslr.
> 
> [   36.817617] livepatch: enabling patch 'klp_tc_13_livepatch'
> [   36.819602] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
> [   36.820113] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
> [   36.820643] ------------[ ftrace bug ]------------
> [   36.821172] ftrace failed to modify
> [   36.821173] [<ffffdde931176804>] orig_do_read_active_livepatch_id+0x4/0xa8 [klp_test_support_mod]
> [   36.822465]  actual:   e4:01:00:94
> [   36.822821] Updating ftrace call site to call a different ftrace function
> [   36.823537] ftrace record flags: e4000002
> [   36.823953]  (2) R
> [   36.823953]  expected tramp: ffffdde96882e224
> [   36.824619] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   36.825125] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 950 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2085 ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> [   36.826027] Modules linked in: klp_tc_13_livepatch(OK+) klp_test_support_mod(O) crct10dif_ce
> [   36.826943] CPU: 0 PID: 950 Comm: insmod Tainted: G           O  K   5.18.0-rc1-00020-g1ffee6fdcfda #39
> [   36.827987] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> [   36.828546] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> [   36.829348] pc : ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> [   36.829790] lr : ftrace_bug+0x228/0x280
> [   36.830224] sp : ffff8000084038e0
> [   36.830620] x29: ffff8000084038e0 x28: ffff00000485a920 x27: ffffdde931176804
> [   36.831419] x26: ffffdde93117d1a0 x25: ffff00000485a900 x24: ffffdde96aea1000
> [   36.832226] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 0000000000000001 x21: ffffdde96a124da0
> [   36.833024] x20: ffff0000045620f0 x19: ffffdde96b54a358 x18: ffffffffffffffff
> [   36.833818] x17: 5b20386178302f34 x16: 78302b64695f6863 x15: ffffdde96a3078f8
> [   36.834621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 3432326532383836 x12: ffffdde96ae9b3d8
> [   36.835425] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffffdde96891305c
> [   36.836221] x8 : c0000000ffffefff x7 : 0000000000017fe8 x6 : ffffdde96ae83398
> [   36.837023] x5 : 0000000000057fa8 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 00000000ffffefff
> [   36.837836] x2 : e32439832ffb9700 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000022
> [   36.838635] Call trace:
> [   36.838923]  ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> [   36.839319]  ftrace_replace_code+0xa0/0xb8
> [   36.839768]  ftrace_modify_all_code+0xc0/0x160
> [   36.840273]  arch_ftrace_update_code+0x14/0x20
> [   36.840780]  ftrace_run_update_code+0x24/0x78
> [   36.841283]  ftrace_startup_enable+0x50/0x60
> [   36.841781]  ftrace_startup+0xb4/0x178
> [   36.842214]  register_ftrace_function+0x68/0x88
> [   36.842738]  klp_patch_object+0x1c8/0x330
> [   36.843196]  klp_enable_patch+0x468/0x828

IIUC that splat specifically is due to ftrace_modify_call() missing module PLT lookups.

That should be fixed by:

  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220614080944.1349146-3-mark.rutland@arm.com/

I have not looked at the rest of this series (yet).

Thanks,
Mark.
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Madhavan T. Venkataraman 1 week, 3 days ago

On 6/15/22 08:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 03:18:44PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>> I have run following [1] livepatch tests on kernel build from your repository.
>> Overall results looks good, but when I run klp_tc_13.shI there is something which
>> I still can not understand completely. It is because of kaslr.
>>
>> [   36.817617] livepatch: enabling patch 'klp_tc_13_livepatch'
>> [   36.819602] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
>> [   36.820113] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
>> [   36.820643] ------------[ ftrace bug ]------------
>> [   36.821172] ftrace failed to modify
>> [   36.821173] [<ffffdde931176804>] orig_do_read_active_livepatch_id+0x4/0xa8 [klp_test_support_mod]
>> [   36.822465]  actual:   e4:01:00:94
>> [   36.822821] Updating ftrace call site to call a different ftrace function
>> [   36.823537] ftrace record flags: e4000002
>> [   36.823953]  (2) R
>> [   36.823953]  expected tramp: ffffdde96882e224
>> [   36.824619] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [   36.825125] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 950 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2085 ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
>> [   36.826027] Modules linked in: klp_tc_13_livepatch(OK+) klp_test_support_mod(O) crct10dif_ce
>> [   36.826943] CPU: 0 PID: 950 Comm: insmod Tainted: G           O  K   5.18.0-rc1-00020-g1ffee6fdcfda #39
>> [   36.827987] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>> [   36.828546] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>> [   36.829348] pc : ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
>> [   36.829790] lr : ftrace_bug+0x228/0x280
>> [   36.830224] sp : ffff8000084038e0
>> [   36.830620] x29: ffff8000084038e0 x28: ffff00000485a920 x27: ffffdde931176804
>> [   36.831419] x26: ffffdde93117d1a0 x25: ffff00000485a900 x24: ffffdde96aea1000
>> [   36.832226] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 0000000000000001 x21: ffffdde96a124da0
>> [   36.833024] x20: ffff0000045620f0 x19: ffffdde96b54a358 x18: ffffffffffffffff
>> [   36.833818] x17: 5b20386178302f34 x16: 78302b64695f6863 x15: ffffdde96a3078f8
>> [   36.834621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 3432326532383836 x12: ffffdde96ae9b3d8
>> [   36.835425] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffffdde96891305c
>> [   36.836221] x8 : c0000000ffffefff x7 : 0000000000017fe8 x6 : ffffdde96ae83398
>> [   36.837023] x5 : 0000000000057fa8 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 00000000ffffefff
>> [   36.837836] x2 : e32439832ffb9700 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000022
>> [   36.838635] Call trace:
>> [   36.838923]  ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
>> [   36.839319]  ftrace_replace_code+0xa0/0xb8
>> [   36.839768]  ftrace_modify_all_code+0xc0/0x160
>> [   36.840273]  arch_ftrace_update_code+0x14/0x20
>> [   36.840780]  ftrace_run_update_code+0x24/0x78
>> [   36.841283]  ftrace_startup_enable+0x50/0x60
>> [   36.841781]  ftrace_startup+0xb4/0x178
>> [   36.842214]  register_ftrace_function+0x68/0x88
>> [   36.842738]  klp_patch_object+0x1c8/0x330
>> [   36.843196]  klp_enable_patch+0x468/0x828
> 
> IIUC that splat specifically is due to ftrace_modify_call() missing module PLT lookups.
> 
> That should be fixed by:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220614080944.1349146-3-mark.rutland@arm.com/
> 
> I have not looked at the rest of this series (yet).
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

Thank you so much, Mark!

I will include this in my patch series until it is upstream.

Madhavan
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Posted by Ivan T. Ivanov 1 week, 3 days ago
Hi,

On 06-15 14:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 03:18:44PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> > I have run following [1] livepatch tests on kernel build from your repository.
> > Overall results looks good, but when I run klp_tc_13.shI there is something which
> > I still can not understand completely. It is because of kaslr.
> > 
> > [   36.817617] livepatch: enabling patch 'klp_tc_13_livepatch'
> > [   36.819602] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
> > [   36.820113] branch_imm_common: offset out of range
> > [   36.820643] ------------[ ftrace bug ]------------
> > [   36.821172] ftrace failed to modify
> > [   36.821173] [<ffffdde931176804>] orig_do_read_active_livepatch_id+0x4/0xa8 [klp_test_support_mod]
> > [   36.822465]  actual:   e4:01:00:94
> > [   36.822821] Updating ftrace call site to call a different ftrace function
> > [   36.823537] ftrace record flags: e4000002
> > [   36.823953]  (2) R
> > [   36.823953]  expected tramp: ffffdde96882e224
> > [   36.824619] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [   36.825125] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 950 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2085 ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> > [   36.826027] Modules linked in: klp_tc_13_livepatch(OK+) klp_test_support_mod(O) crct10dif_ce
> > [   36.826943] CPU: 0 PID: 950 Comm: insmod Tainted: G           O  K   5.18.0-rc1-00020-g1ffee6fdcfda #39
> > [   36.827987] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > [   36.828546] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> > [   36.829348] pc : ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> > [   36.829790] lr : ftrace_bug+0x228/0x280
> > [   36.830224] sp : ffff8000084038e0
> > [   36.830620] x29: ffff8000084038e0 x28: ffff00000485a920 x27: ffffdde931176804
> > [   36.831419] x26: ffffdde93117d1a0 x25: ffff00000485a900 x24: ffffdde96aea1000
> > [   36.832226] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 0000000000000001 x21: ffffdde96a124da0
> > [   36.833024] x20: ffff0000045620f0 x19: ffffdde96b54a358 x18: ffffffffffffffff
> > [   36.833818] x17: 5b20386178302f34 x16: 78302b64695f6863 x15: ffffdde96a3078f8
> > [   36.834621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 3432326532383836 x12: ffffdde96ae9b3d8
> > [   36.835425] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffffdde96891305c
> > [   36.836221] x8 : c0000000ffffefff x7 : 0000000000017fe8 x6 : ffffdde96ae83398
> > [   36.837023] x5 : 0000000000057fa8 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 00000000ffffefff
> > [   36.837836] x2 : e32439832ffb9700 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000022
> > [   36.838635] Call trace:
> > [   36.838923]  ftrace_bug+0x98/0x280
> > [   36.839319]  ftrace_replace_code+0xa0/0xb8
> > [   36.839768]  ftrace_modify_all_code+0xc0/0x160
> > [   36.840273]  arch_ftrace_update_code+0x14/0x20
> > [   36.840780]  ftrace_run_update_code+0x24/0x78
> > [   36.841283]  ftrace_startup_enable+0x50/0x60
> > [   36.841781]  ftrace_startup+0xb4/0x178
> > [   36.842214]  register_ftrace_function+0x68/0x88
> > [   36.842738]  klp_patch_object+0x1c8/0x330
> > [   36.843196]  klp_enable_patch+0x468/0x828
> 
> IIUC that splat specifically is due to ftrace_modify_call() missing module PLT lookups.
> 
> That should be fixed by:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220614080944.1349146-3-mark.rutland@arm.com/
> 

Yes, this is it. Thanks!

Regards,
Ivan