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, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/stacktrace: do not fail when regs on stack for ORC
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:59:39 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171130195939.gx2qlewwjprfql42@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171130195710.cu2lsa47kwnow2hi@treble>
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:57:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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.
^^^^^^^
meant to say pr_debug()s.
Also adding the live patching mailing list as an FYI.
>
> - 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-30 19:59 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 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/stacktrace: do not fail when regs on stack for ORC Josh Poimboeuf
2017-11-30 19:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
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=20171130195939.gx2qlewwjprfql42@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@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®