Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/process: fix nested output in show_user_instructions()

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:

> When two processes crash at the same time, we sometimes encounter
> nesting in the middle of a line:

I think "interleaved" is the right word, rather than "nesting".

They're actually (potentially) completely unrelated segfaults, that just
happen to occur at the same time.

And in fact any output that happens simultaneously will mess things up,
it doesn't have to be another segfault.

> [    4.365317] init[1]: segfault (11) at 0 nip 0 lr 0 code 1
> [    4.370452] init[1]: code: XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
> [    4.372042] init[74]: segfault (11) at 10a74 nip 1000c198 lr 100078c8 code 1 in sh[10000000+14000]
> [    4.386829] XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
> [    4.391542] init[1]: code: XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
> [    4.400863] init[74]: code: 90010024 bf61000c 91490a7c 3fa01002 3be00000 7d3e4b78 3bbd0c20 3b600000
> [    4.409867] init[74]: code: 3b9d0040 7c7fe02e 2f830000 419e0028 <89230000> 2f890000 41be001c 4b7f6e79
>
> This patch fixes it by preparing complete lines in a buffer and
> printing it at once.
>
> Fixes: 88b0fe1757359 ("powerpc: Add show_user_instructions()")
> Cc: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muriloo@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> index 913c5725cdb2..c722ce4ca1c0 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> @@ -1303,32 +1303,33 @@ void show_user_instructions(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
>  	unsigned long pc;
>  	int i;
> +	char buf[96]; /* enough for 8 times 9 + 2 chars */
> +	int l = 0;

I'm sure your math is right, but still an on-stack buffer with sprintf()
is a bit scary.

Can you try using seq_buf instead? It is safe against overflow.

eg, something like:

struct seq_buf s;
char buf[96];

seq_buf_init(&s, buf, sizeof(buf));
...
seq_buf_printf(&s, ...);

cheers