[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160722014140.nhbbhan54fhhb3k7@treble>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:41:40 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] x86/dumpstack: remove unnecessary stack pointer
arguments
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:56:52PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > When calling show_stack_log_lvl() or dump_trace() with a regs argument,
> > providing a stack pointer or frame pointer is redundant.
> >
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
> > index 358fe1c..c533b8b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
> > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > u8 *ip;
> >
> > pr_emerg("Stack:\n");
> > - show_stack_log_lvl(NULL, regs, ®s->sp, 0, KERN_EMERG);
> > + show_stack_log_lvl(NULL, regs, NULL, 0, KERN_EMERG);
>
> This is weird -- note the &. You're at some risk of exposing a bug in
> x86_32's kernel_stack_pointer() function, which is a mess. (I don't
> see why it's written the way it is -- the actual return stack pointer
> given a pt_regs is quite well defined -- if regs->cs & 3 != 0, then
> it's regs->sp, else it's ®s->sp.)
>
> That being said, this isn't a big deal, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>
> If you want to make this all a bit more reliably on x86_32, you could
> fix kernel_stack_pointer().
Ok. The whole '®s->sp' thing threw me for a loop. I have no idea
what kernel_stack_pointer() is trying to do. I just assumed it was
correct. I'll take a look at it and try to fix it in another patch.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists