[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150718034448.GA22788@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 05:44:49 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/21] sched: Add __schedule() to stackvalidate
whitelist
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:47:28AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> stackvalidate reports the following warnings for __schedule():
> >>
> >> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x3e7: duplicate frame pointer save
> >> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x424: sibling call from callable instruction with changed frame pointer
> >> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x431: call without frame pointer save/setup
> >> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x8b8: frame pointer state mismatch
> >> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x447: frame pointer state mismatch
> >>
> >> __schedule() is obviously a special case which is allowed to do unusual
> >> things with the frame pointer.
> >
> > Yes, but is the code actually correct? We can't dismiss the warnings
> > just on that basis alone.
>
> It's really only __switch_to that does weird things, right? I kinda
> want to rework that thing anyway to have a well-defined saved state
> format anyway, which would have the nice benefit of letting us get rid
> of all the ret_from_fork crap.
>
> That is, we'd context switch like:
>
> static inline void __switch_to(...) {
> switch extra stuff;
> switch everything except gpregs;
> asm volatile ("call __switch_stack_and_ip" : [__sp thing goes here]
> : "S" (&prev->bottom_of_stack), "D" (&next->bottom_of_stack) :
> "basically all regs and flags");
> }
>
> Then the low level bit would be:
>
> __switch_stack_and_ip:
> pushq %rbp
> mov %rsp, (%rsi)
> mov (%rdi), %rsp
> popq %rbp
> ret
>
> Now, when we create a new task, we can set up its stack directly
> rather than setting some TI flag, because we actually know the layout.
>
> Hmm?
Sounds good to me!
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists