[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWL2omGLJUnurKXdZK3c6RgMNuPndmxQKLrwiQrnDfODg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:26:29 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
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>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/51] x86/dumpstack: fix x86_32 kernel_stack_pointer()
previous stack access
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> On x86_32, when an interrupt happens from kernel space, SS and SP aren't
> pushed and the existing stack is used. So pt_regs is effectively two
> words shorter, and the previous stack pointer is normally the memory
> after the shortened pt_regs, aka '®s->sp'.
>
> But in the rare case where the interrupt hits right after the stack
> pointer has been changed to point to an empty stack, like for example
> when call_on_stack() is used, the address immediately after the
> shortened pt_regs is no longer on the stack. In that case, instead of
> '®s->sp', the previous stack pointer should be retrieved from the
> beginning of the current stack page.
>
> kernel_stack_pointer() wants to do that, but it forgets to dereference
> the pointer. So instead of returning a pointer to the previous stack,
> it returns a pointer to the beginning of the current stack.
>
> Fixes: 0788aa6a23cb ("x86: Prepare removal of previous_esp from i386 thread_info structure")
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
This seems like a valid fix, but I'm not sure I agree with the intent
of the code. ®s->sp really is the previous stack pointer in the
sense that the stack pointer was ®s->sp when the entry happened.
>From an unwinder's perspective, how is:
movl [whatever], $esp
<-- interrupt
any different from:
movl [whatever], $esp
pushl [something]
<-- interrupt
Also, does x86_32 do this type of stack switching at all? AFAICS
32-bit kernels don't use IRQ stacks in the first place. Do they? Am
I just missing the code that does it?
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists