mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/stacktrace: do not fail when regs on stack for ORC
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:57:10 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171130195710.cu2lsa47kwnow2hi@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171130080325.24785-1-jslaby@suse.cz>

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:03:24AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> save_stack_trace_reliable now returns "non reliable" when there are
> kernel pt_regs on stack. This means an interrupt or exception happened.
> Somewhere down the route. It is a problem for frame pointer unwinder,
> because the frame might now have been set up yet when the irq happened,
> so it might fail to unwind from the interrupted function.
> 
> With ORC, this is not a problem, as ORC has out-of-band data. We can
> find ORC data even for the IP in interrupted function and always unwind
> one level up.
> 
> So introduce `unwind_regs_reliable' which decides if this is an issue
> for the currently selected unwinder at all and change the code
> accordingly.

Thanks.  I'm thinking there a few ways we can simplify things.  (Most of
these are actually issues with the existing code.)

- Currently we check to make sure that there's no frame *after* the user
  space regs.  I think there's no way that could ever happen and the
  check is overkill.

- We should probably remove the STACKTRACE_DUMP_ONCE() warnings.  There
  are some known places where a stack trace will fail, particularly with
  generated code.  I wish we had a DEBUG_WARN_ON() macro which used
  pr_debug(), but oh well.  At least the livepatch code has some helpful
  pr_warn()s, those are probably good enough.

- The unwind->error checks are superfluous.  The only errors we need to
  check for are (a) whether the FP unwinder encountered a kernel irq and
  b) whether we reached the final user regs frame.  So I think
  unwind->error can be removed altogether.

So with those changes in mind, how about something like this (plus
comments)?

	for (unwind_start(&state, task, NULL, NULL); !unwind_done(&state);
	     unwind_next_frame(&state)) {

		regs = unwind_get_entry_regs(&state);
		if (regs) {
			if (user_mode(regs))
				goto success;

			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER))
				return -EINVAL;
		}

		addr = unwind_get_return_address(&state);
		if (!addr)
			return -EINVAL;

		if (save_stack_address(trace, addr, false))
			return -EINVAL;
	}

	return -EINVAL;

success:
	if (trace->nr_entries < trace->max_entries)
		trace->entries[trace->nr_entries++] = ULONG_MAX;

	return 0;

After these changes I believe we can enable
CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE for ORC.

Also, when you post the next version, please cc the live patching
mailing list, since this is directly relevant to livepatch.

Thanks!

-- 
Josh

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-11-30 19:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-30  8:03 Jiri Slaby
2017-11-30  8:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/stacktrace: make sure reliable stack trace reached userspace Jiri Slaby
2017-11-30 19:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2017-11-30 19:59   ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/stacktrace: do not fail when regs on stack for ORC Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-01  7:34     ` Jiri Slaby
2017-12-14 21:58   ` Jiri Slaby
2017-12-18  3:37     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-18  6:59       ` Jiri Slaby
2017-12-20 17:45       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-20 19:07         ` Jiri Slaby
2018-04-16 22:16           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-04-19 13:42             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-05-10 12:33               ` Jiri Slaby
2018-05-10 12:49                 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-05-11  7:01                   ` Jiri Slaby
2018-05-11 15:12                     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-05-14 11:08                       ` Jiri Slaby
2018-05-14 13:42                         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-05-14 14:00                           ` Jiri Slaby

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171130195710.cu2lsa47kwnow2hi@treble \
    --to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®