From: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
To: maz@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org,
madvenka@linux.microsoft.com, tabba@google.com
Cc: will@kernel.org, qperret@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com,
james.morse@arm.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com,
suzuki.poulose@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
andreyknvl@gmail.com, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
mhiramat@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, drjones@redhat.com,
wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, elver@google.com, keirf@google.com,
yuzenghui@huawei.com, ardb@kernel.org, oupton@google.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
android-mm@google.com, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: [PATCH v5 03/17] arm64: stacktrace: Factor out unwind_next_common()
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 22:57:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220721055728.718573-4-kaleshsingh@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220721055728.718573-1-kaleshsingh@google.com>
Move common unwind_next logic to stacktrace/common.h. This allows
reusing the code in the implementation the nVHE hypervisor stack
unwinder, later in this series.
Signed-off-by: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
Changes in v5:
- Add Reviewed-by tags from Mark Brown and Fuad
arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace/common.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 41 ++----------------
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace/common.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace/common.h
index f58b786460d3..0c5cbfdb56b5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace/common.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace/common.h
@@ -65,6 +65,10 @@ struct unwind_state {
static inline bool on_overflow_stack(unsigned long sp, unsigned long size,
struct stack_info *info);
+static inline bool on_accessible_stack(const struct task_struct *tsk,
+ unsigned long sp, unsigned long size,
+ struct stack_info *info);
+
static inline bool on_stack(unsigned long sp, unsigned long size,
unsigned long low, unsigned long high,
enum stack_type type, struct stack_info *info)
@@ -120,4 +124,50 @@ static inline void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
state->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
}
+static inline int unwind_next_common(struct unwind_state *state,
+ struct stack_info *info)
+{
+ struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
+ unsigned long fp = state->fp;
+
+ if (fp & 0x7)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!on_accessible_stack(tsk, fp, 16, info))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (test_bit(info->type, state->stacks_done))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /*
+ * As stacks grow downward, any valid record on the same stack must be
+ * at a strictly higher address than the prior record.
+ *
+ * Stacks can nest in several valid orders, e.g.
+ *
+ * TASK -> IRQ -> OVERFLOW -> SDEI_NORMAL
+ * TASK -> SDEI_NORMAL -> SDEI_CRITICAL -> OVERFLOW
+ *
+ * ... but the nesting itself is strict. Once we transition from one
+ * stack to another, it's never valid to unwind back to that first
+ * stack.
+ */
+ if (info->type == state->prev_type) {
+ if (fp <= state->prev_fp)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ } else {
+ __set_bit(state->prev_type, state->stacks_done);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Record this frame record's values and location. The prev_fp and
+ * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_next() invocation.
+ */
+ state->fp = READ_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
+ state->pc = READ_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
+ state->prev_fp = fp;
+ state->prev_type = info->type;
+
+ return 0;
+}
#endif /* __ASM_STACKTRACE_COMMON_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 94a5dd2ab8fd..834851939364 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -81,48 +81,15 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
unsigned long fp = state->fp;
struct stack_info info;
+ int err;
/* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
return -ENOENT;
- if (fp & 0x7)
- return -EINVAL;
-
- if (!on_accessible_stack(tsk, fp, 16, &info))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- if (test_bit(info.type, state->stacks_done))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- /*
- * As stacks grow downward, any valid record on the same stack must be
- * at a strictly higher address than the prior record.
- *
- * Stacks can nest in several valid orders, e.g.
- *
- * TASK -> IRQ -> OVERFLOW -> SDEI_NORMAL
- * TASK -> SDEI_NORMAL -> SDEI_CRITICAL -> OVERFLOW
- *
- * ... but the nesting itself is strict. Once we transition from one
- * stack to another, it's never valid to unwind back to that first
- * stack.
- */
- if (info.type == state->prev_type) {
- if (fp <= state->prev_fp)
- return -EINVAL;
- } else {
- __set_bit(state->prev_type, state->stacks_done);
- }
-
- /*
- * Record this frame record's values and location. The prev_fp and
- * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_next() invocation.
- */
- state->fp = READ_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
- state->pc = READ_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
- state->prev_fp = fp;
- state->prev_type = info.type;
+ err = unwind_next_common(state, &info);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
state->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(state->pc);
--
2.37.0.170.g444d1eabd0-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-21 5:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-21 5:57 [PATCH v5 00/17] KVM nVHE Hypervisor stack unwinder Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 01/17] arm64: stacktrace: Add shared header for common stack unwinding code Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 02/17] arm64: stacktrace: Factor out on_accessible_stack_common() Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 5:57 ` Kalesh Singh [this message]
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 04/17] arm64: stacktrace: Handle frame pointer from different address spaces Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:57 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 05/17] arm64: stacktrace: Factor out common unwind() Kalesh Singh
2022-07-25 14:05 ` Mark Brown
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 06/17] arm64: stacktrace: Add description of stacktrace/common.h Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:57 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 07/17] KVM: arm64: On stack overflow switch to hyp overflow_stack Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 08/17] KVM: arm64: Add PROTECTED_NVHE_STACKTRACE Kconfig Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:57 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 09/17] KVM: arm64: Allocate shared pKVM hyp stacktrace buffers Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:57 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 10/17] KVM: arm64: Stub implementation of pKVM HYP stack unwinder Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:58 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 11/17] KVM: arm64: Stub implementation of non-protected nVHE " Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:58 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 12/17] KVM: arm64: Save protected-nVHE (pKVM) hyp stacktrace Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:58 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-22 15:33 ` Oliver Upton
2022-07-22 17:28 ` Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 13/17] KVM: arm64: Prepare non-protected nVHE hypervisor stacktrace Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:58 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 14/17] KVM: arm64: Implement protected nVHE hyp stack unwinder Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:58 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 15/17] KVM: arm64: Implement non-protected " Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:58 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 16/17] KVM: arm64: Introduce pkvm_dump_backtrace() Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:59 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-22 11:16 ` Oliver Upton
2022-07-22 17:25 ` Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 5:57 ` [PATCH v5 17/17] KVM: arm64: Introduce hyp_dump_backtrace() Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:59 ` Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 20:35 ` Oliver Upton
2022-07-22 0:01 ` Kalesh Singh
2022-07-21 9:55 ` [PATCH v5 00/17] KVM nVHE Hypervisor stack unwinder Fuad Tabba
2022-07-21 16:06 ` Kalesh Singh
2022-07-22 10:48 ` Oliver Upton
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=20220721055728.718573-4-kaleshsingh@google.com \
--to=kaleshsingh@google.com \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=android-mm@google.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=keirf@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@google.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tabba@google.com \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/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®