linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <10104998-CA54-4150-9228-2ED8C327911D@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:38:28 +0900
From:	Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>
To:	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, catalin.marinas@....com,
	will.deacon@....com, olof@...om.net, broonie@...nel.org,
	david.griego@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace()

On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:04 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Jungseok,
> 
> Thank you for your testing and reviews.

You're welcome.

> On 07/16/2015 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, AKASHI
>> 
>>> On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>> On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
>>>>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does the  following patch make sense for you?
>>>> 
>>>> Looks nice. The patch greatly simplifies changes on arm64 side.
>>> 
>>> As follows:
>>> 
>>> - Takahiro AKASHI
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
>>> index c5534fa..868d6f1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>> 
>>> #define MCOUNT_ADDR		((unsigned long)_mcount)
>>> #define MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE	AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
>>> +#define FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET 4 /* sync it up with stacktrace.c */
> 
> Well,
>  #define FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> might be better.

Agree.

> 
>> How about binding it to -4 in unwind_frame function?
> 
> Do you mean like this?
> In unwind_frame(),
>  frame->pc = *(unsigned long*)(fp + 8) - AARCH64_INSN_SIZE;

Exactly.

> 
>> IMHO, it would help other developers trying to change stack trace code
>> be aware of this stack tracer feature.
>> 
>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>> #include <linux/compat.h>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
>>> index 1da6029..2c1bf7d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
>>> @@ -260,6 +260,13 @@ static inline void ftrace_kill(void) { }
>>> #endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER */
>>> 
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_TRACER
>>> +/*
>>> + * the offset value to add to return address from save_stack_trace()
>>> + */
>>> +#ifndef FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET
>>> +#define FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET 0
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> extern int stack_tracer_enabled;
>>> int
>>> stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
>>> index 9384647..c5b9748 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ check_stack(unsigned long ip, unsigned long *stack)
>>> 
>>> 	/* Skip over the overhead of the stack tracer itself */
>>> 	for (i = 0; i < max_stack_trace.nr_entries; i++) {
>>> -		if (stack_dump_trace[i] == ip)
>>> +		if ((stack_dump_trace[i] + FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET) == ip)
>>> 			break;
>>> 	}
>>> 
>>> @@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ check_stack(unsigned long ip, unsigned long *stack)
>>> 		p = start;
>>> 
>>> 		for (; p < top && i < max_stack_trace.nr_entries; p++) {
>>> -			if (*p == stack_dump_trace[i]) {
>>> +			if (*p == (stack_dump_trace[i]
>>> +					+ FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET)) {
>>> 				stack_dump_trace[x] = stack_dump_trace[i++];
>>> 				this_size = stack_dump_index[x++] =
>>> 					(top - p) * sizeof(unsigned long);
>>> --
>> 
>> I've prepared a kernel with the following patches and reviewed them.
>> 
>> 1) Steve's clean up patch
>> 2) This patch
>> 3) [RFC 2/3]
>> 
>> AFAIU, [RFC 3/3] is not needed any more thanks to Steve's patch.
> 
> We don't need [2/3].

Okay. So, I've played a kernel including Steve's latest patch and only [1/3].

Best Regards
Jungseok Lee--
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/