Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for function graph tracing

[Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1197 bytes --]

On 16/01/18 18:57, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:48:32AM +0100, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> index 76809ccd309c..5a528c58ef68 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> @@ -59,6 +59,10 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>>  	if (tsk->ret_stack &&
>>  			(frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)) {
>> +		WARN_ON(frame->graph == -1);
>> +		if (frame->graph < -1)
>> +			frame->graph += FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH;
>> +
>>  		/*
>>  		 * This is a case where function graph tracer has
>>  		 * modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame
> 
> So do we still allow this to continue if graph == -1? The following line
> doesn't seem safe:
> 
> 		frame->pc = tsk->ret_stack[frame->graph--].ret;
> 

You're right. We probably should return a error (-EINVAL I guess) if
this happens. Note that this shouldn't happen here and if we're
confident enough that profile_pc() was the only faulty caller, we could
just drop the warning.

Jerome


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]