From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foudation.org, ben-linux@fluff.org,
wuchi.zero@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: profiling: remove lock functions hack for !FRAME_POINTER
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:43:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230419154335.4vc7rouxl4gsynzm@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230410022226.181812-2-chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:22:25AM +0800, Chen Zhongjin wrote:
> Syzbot has been reporting the problem of stack-out-of-bounds in
> profile_pc for a long time:
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=84fe685c02cd112a2ac3
>
> profile_pc tries to get pc if current regs is inside lock function. For
> !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER it used a hack way to get the pc from stack, which
> is not work with ORC. It makes profile_pc read illeagal address, return
> wrong result, and frequently triggers KASAN.
>
> Since lock profiling can be handled with much better other tools, It's
> reasonable to remove lock functions hack for !FRAME_POINTER kernel.
>
> Suggested-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/time.c | 14 +-------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
> index e42faa792c07..e08fac7bb71e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
> @@ -29,22 +29,10 @@ unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> unsigned long pc = instruction_pointer(regs);
>
> - if (!user_mode(regs) && in_lock_functions(pc)) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
> + if (!user_mode(regs) && in_lock_functions(pc))
If lock profiling is no longer useful then we should just remove it
altogether, not just for ORC.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-19 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-10 2:22 [PATCH 0/2] Fix two bugs for profile Chen Zhongjin
2023-04-10 2:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: profiling: remove lock functions hack for !FRAME_POINTER Chen Zhongjin
2023-04-10 19:34 ` Dave Hansen
2023-04-12 7:01 ` Chen Zhongjin
2023-04-12 10:01 ` David Laight
2023-04-13 7:53 ` Chen Zhongjin
2023-04-19 16:17 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-19 15:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2023-04-10 2:22 ` [PATCH 2/2] profiling: Check prof_buffer in profile_tick() Chen Zhongjin
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=20230419154335.4vc7rouxl4gsynzm@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foudation.org \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chenzhongjin@huawei.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wuchi.zero@gmail.com \
--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®