lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/21] x86/unwinder/orc: Don't bail on stack overflow
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:45:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>
> If we overflow the stack into a guard page and then try to unwind it
> with ORC, it should work well: by construction, there can't be any
> meaningful data in the guard page because no writes to the guard page
> will have succeeded.
>
> This patch fixes a bug that unwinding from working correctly: if the
^
prevents

> starting register state has RSP pointing into a stack guard page, the
> ORC unwinder bails out immediately. This patch fixes that: the ORC

I believe here we can kill the second "This patch" :)

> unwinder will start the unwind.
>
> I tested this by intentionally overflowing the task stack. The
> result is an accurate call trace instead of a trace consisting
> purely of '?' entries.
>
> There are a few other bugs that are triggered if the unwinder
> encounters a stack overflow after the first step, and Josh has WIP
> patches to fix those as well.

I guess we don't need that paragraph.

> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@suse.de>
> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/927042950d7f1a7007dd0f58538966a593508f8b.1511715954.git.luto@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> index a3f973b2c97a..7f6e3935666b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> @@ -553,8 +553,18 @@ void __unwind_start(struct unwind_state *state, struct task_struct *task,
> }
>
> if (get_stack_info((unsigned long *)state->sp, state->task,
> - &state->stack_info, &state->stack_mask))
> - return;
> + &state->stack_info, &state->stack_mask)) {
> + /*
> + * We weren't on a valid stack. It's possible that
> + * we overflowed a valid stack into a guard page.
> + * See if the next page up is valid so that we can
> + * generate some kind of backtrace if this happens.
> + */

Right, should we issue a marker or somesuch here to denote that we somehow
walked into the guard page?

It might be helpful when debugging issues, to see the big picture...

> + void *next_page = (void *)PAGE_ALIGN((unsigned long)regs->sp);
> + if (get_stack_info(next_page, state->task, &state->stack_info,
> + &state->stack_mask))
> + return;
> + }
>
> /*
> * The caller can provide the address of the first frame directly
> --

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-27 15:48    [W:0.117 / U:2.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site