From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] x86/dumpstack: Improve opcodes dumping in the Code: section
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:15:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180309101551.GA10753@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwpXcoXJEPGShDSjovA7X20qc_iMioD129BSzGmNiQNaw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:20:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, so the reason the prologue is more important is that there's
> really two cases for the "Code:" line:
Yap, I had a hunch it must be about some of those but thanks for taking
the time and writing it down!
I've tried to summarize the reasoning and slap it as a comment above it
so that it is clear why we do it this way:
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
index c3aa0e29513e..7a21098c9128 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
@@ -71,6 +71,25 @@ static void printk_stack_address(unsigned long address, int reliable,
printk("%s %s%pB\n", log_lvl, reliable ? "" : "? ", (void *)address);
}
+/*
+ * The are a couple of reasons for the 2/3rd prologue, courtesy of Linus:
+ *
+ * In case where we don't have the exact kernel image (which, if we did, we can
+ * simply disassemble and navigate to the RIP), the purpose of the bigger
+ * prologue is to have more context and to be able to correlate the code from
+ * the different toolchains better.
+ *
+ * In addition, it helps in recreating the register allocation of the failing
+ * kernel and thus make sense of the register dump.
+ *
+ * What is more, the additional complication of a variable length insn arch like
+ * x86 warrants having longer byte sequence before rIP so that the disassembler
+ * can "sync" up properly and find instruction boundaries when decoding the
+ * opcode bytes.
+ *
+ * Thus, the 2/3rds prologue and 64 byte OPCODE_BUFSIZE is just a random
+ * guesstimate in attempt to achieve all of the above.
+ */
void show_opcodes(u8 *rip, const char *loglvl)
{
#define OPCODE_BUFSIZE 64
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-09 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-06 9:49 [PATCH 0/9] x86/dumpstack: Cleanups and user opcode bytes Code: section, v1 Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 1/9] panic: Add closing panic marker parenthesis Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 11:03 ` [tip:core/core] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 2/9] x86/fault: Do not print IP in show_fault_oops() Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 11:09 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 3/9] x86/dumpstack: Unify show_regs() Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 11:10 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 4/9] x86/dumpstack: Carve out Code: dumping into a function Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 5/9] x86/dumpstack: Improve opcodes dumping in the Code: section Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 18:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-03-07 10:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-03-07 13:25 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-03-07 14:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-03-07 21:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-03-08 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 18:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-03-08 22:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-03-09 10:15 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 6/9] x86/dumpstack: Add loglevel argument to show_opcodes() Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 7/9] x86/fault: Dump user opcode bytes on fatal faults Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 8/9] x86/dumpstack: Add a show_ip() function Borislav Petkov
2018-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH 9/9] x86/dumpstack: Save first regs set for the executive summary Borislav Petkov
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=20180309101551.GA10753@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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
Powered by JetHome