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]

Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:20:04 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
	"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"david.griego@...aro.org" <david.griego@...aro.org>,
	"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace()

Hi all,

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
> >> I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all the
> >> changes in together. This is fine for a 4.3 release, right? That is, it
> >> doesn't need to go into 4.2-rcs.
> >> 
> > 
> > It's not hard to repost a patch, but I feel like we have to wait for Akashi's response.
> > Also, it might be needed to consider Mark's comment on arch part.
> > 
> > If they are okay, I will proceed.
> 
> The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows.
> I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this format
> instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track down this thread.
> 
> I think this is my best at this point.
> 
> ----8<----
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> index c5534fa..2b43e20 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> @@ -13,8 +13,9 @@
>  
>  #include <asm/insn.h>
>  
> -#define MCOUNT_ADDR		((unsigned long)_mcount)
> -#define MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE	AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> +#define MCOUNT_ADDR			((unsigned long)_mcount)
> +#define MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE		AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> +#define FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET	AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
>  
>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  #include <linux/compat.h>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 407991b..9ab67af 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
>  
> +#include <asm/insn.h>
>  #include <asm/stacktrace.h>
>  
>  /*
> @@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>  	 * -4 here because we care about the PC at time of bl,
>  	 * not where the return will go.
>  	 */
> -	frame->pc = *(unsigned long *)(fp + 8) - 4;
> +	frame->pc = *(unsigned long *)(fp + 8) - AARCH64_INSN_SIZE;
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

The arm64 bits look fine to me:

  Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>

Steve: feel free to take this along with the other ftrace changes. I don't
anticipate any conflicts, but if anything crops up in -next we can sort
it out then.

Thanks!

Will
--
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/