linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer

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: <36B8D79C-E3BD-4937-94D1-B9725CA4FD68@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 23:45:01 +0900
From:	Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>
To:	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Cc:	catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	olof@...om.net, broonie@...nel.org, david.griego@...aro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer

On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:01 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:

Hi Akashi,

> This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64.
> The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more
> issues[2].
> (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.)
> 
> I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except
> for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about
> introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking
> through from an interrupt stack to a process stack.
> (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.)
> 
> Basically,
> patch1 corresponds to the original issue.
> patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer. 
> patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer).
> patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function).
> patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences
> between x86 and arm64).
> 
> Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are
> acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default
> stack tracer.
> 
> I tested the code with v4.3-rc3 + Jungseok's patch v3[4].
> 
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354126.html
> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/355920.html 
> [3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/368003.html
> [4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/371451.html

The [4] is not a valid patch. I hope the test has been going with the following one.

	http://www.kernelhub.org/?msg=841034&p=2

I will leave comments after playing with this series on top of my IRQ stack tree.

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/