lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/13] x86/dumpstack: Try harder to get a call trace on stack overflow
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:22:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:28:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> If we overflow the stack, print_context_stack will abort. Detect
>> >> this case and rewind back into the valid part of the stack so that
>> >> we can trace it.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>> >> ---
>> >> arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 7 +++++++
>> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> >> index d4d085e27d04..400a2e17c1d1 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> >> @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
>> >> {
>> >> struct stack_frame *frame = (struct stack_frame *)bp;
>> >>
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * If we overflowed the stack into a guard page, jump back to the
>> >> + * bottom of the usable stack.
>> >> + */
>> >> + if ((unsigned long)tinfo - (unsigned long)stack < PAGE_SIZE)
>> >> + stack = (unsigned long *)tinfo + 1;
>> >
>> > That will start walking the stack in the middle of the thread_info
>> > struct.
>> >
>> > I think you meant:
>> >
>> > stack = (unsigned long *)(tinfo + 1)
>> >
>> > However, thread_info will have been overwritten anyway. So maybe it
>> > should just be:
>> >
>> > stack = tinfo;
>> >
>> > (Though that still wouldn't quite work because the valid_stack_ptr()
>> > check would fail...)
>>
>> I did mean what I wrote, because I wanted to start at the bottom of
>> the validly allocated area. IOW I wanted to do the minimum possible
>> backward jump to make the code display something.
>
> But why the "+ 1"? Is that a hack to make it pass the valid_stack_ptr()
> check?

Yes.

But hmm. Maybe the right fix is to drop the + 1 and to change the
last line of valid_stck_ptr from:

return p > t && p < t + THREAD_SIZE - size;

to:

return p >= t && p < t + THREAD_SIZE - size;

The current definition of valid_stack_ptr is certainly nonsensical.
It should either be p >= t or p >= t + 1.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-16 21:21    [W:0.091 / U:5.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site