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: <55AE1E5F.6060407@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:26:39 +0900
From:	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	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>,
	"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()

On 07/21/2015 08:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
> commit log message[1/3] as is.
> But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
> in the cover letter; 'Size' field is inaccurate.
>   <reported size> = <its own dynamic local variables>
>                          + <child's local variables>
> and
>   <real size> = <reported size> + <its local variables>
>                                 - <child's local variables>
> where "dynamic" means, for example, a variable allocated like the below:
>    int foo(int num) {
>      int array[num];
>      ...
>    }
> (See more details in my ascii art.)
>
> Such usage is seldom seen in the kernel, and <reported size> is
> likely equal to <child's local variables>. In other words, we will
> see one-line *displacement* in most cases.

Well, I have a quick fix now, but it looks ugly.

In addition, I found another issue; With function_graph tracer,
the output is like:
# cat /sys/kernel/tracing/stack_trace
         Depth    Size   Location    (78 entries)
         -----    ----   --------
   0)     6184      32   update_min_vruntime+0x14/0x74
   1)     6152      48   update_curr+0x6c/0x150
   2)     6104     128   enqueue_task_fair+0x2f4/0xb9c
   3)     5976      48   enqueue_task+0x48/0x90
   ...
  18)     5160     112   hrtimer_interrupt+0xa0/0x214
  19)     5048      32   arch_timer_handler_phys+0x38/0x48
  20)     5016       0   ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30
  21)     5016      64   ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30
  22)     4952      32   ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30
  23)     4920      64   ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30
   ...

Since, with function_graph tracer, we modify LR register in a stack frame
when we enter into a function, we have to manage such special cases
in save_stack_trace() or check_stack() as x86 does in
print_ftrace_graph_addr().

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI


> (We'd better mention it explicitly in the commmit?)
>
> Thanks,
> -Takahiro AKASHI
>
>
> On 07/21/2015 01:20 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> 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/