linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/3] x86/documentation: Adapt Ingo's explanation on printing backtraces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1432223353-19008-3-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 17:49:13 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] x86/documentation: Adapt Ingo's explanation on printing backtraces

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>

Hold it down for future reference, as the question about the question
mark in stack traces keeps popping up.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150521101614.GA10889@gmail.com
---
 Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks b/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks
index c3c935b9d56e..0f3a6c201943 100644
--- a/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks
+++ b/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks
@@ -95,3 +95,47 @@ The currently assigned IST stacks are :-
   assumptions about the previous state of the kernel stack.
 
 For more details see the Intel IA32 or AMD AMD64 architecture manuals.
+
+
+Printing backtraces on x86
+--------------------------
+
+The question about the '?' preceding function names in an x86 stacktrace
+keeps popping up, here's an indepth explanation. It helps if the reader
+stares at print_context_stack() and the whole machinery in and around
+arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c.
+
+Adapted from Ingo's mail, Message-ID: <20150521101614.GA10889@...il.com>:
+
+We always scan the full kernel stack for return addresses stored on
+the kernel stack(s) [*], from stack top to stack bottom, and print out
+anything that 'looks like' a kernel text address.
+
+If it fits into the frame pointer chain, we print it without a question
+mark, knowing that it's part of the real backtrace.
+
+If the address does not fit into our expected frame pointer chain we
+still print it, but we print a '?'. It can mean two things:
+
+ - either the address is not part of the call chain: it's just stale
+   values on the kernel stack, from earlier function calls. This is
+   the common case.
+
+ - or it is part of the call chain, but the frame pointer was not set
+   up properly within the function, so we don't recognize it.
+
+This way we will always print out the real call chain (plus a few more
+entries), regardless of whether the frame pointer was set up correctly
+or not - but in most cases we'll get the call chain right as well. The
+entries printed are strictly in stack order, so you can deduce more
+information from that as well.
+
+The most important property of this method is that we _never_ lose
+information: we always strive to print _all_ addresses on the stack(s)
+that look like kernel text addresses, so if debug information is wrong,
+we still print out the real call chain as well - just with more question
+marks than ideal.
+
+[*] For things like IRQ and IST stacks, we also scan those stacks, in
+    the right order, and try to cross from one stack into another
+    reconstructing the call chain. This works most of the time.
-- 
2.3.5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/