linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Stacktrace in ARM32 architecture has jumped the first 2 layers, which may ignore the display of save_stack_trace

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: <20190530162219.dtooagpeyczfaazb@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 17:22:19 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     l00383200 <liucheng32@...wei.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stacktrace in ARM32 architecture has jumped the first 2
 layers, which may ignore the display of save_stack_trace_tsk.

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:06:39PM +0800, l00383200 wrote:
> Without optimization, both save_stack_trace_tsk and __save_stack_trace
> will have stacktrace information in ARM32.
> 
> In this situation, "data.skip += 2" operation will skip the first two layers,
> which may make the stacktrace strange and different from other architectures.
> 
> A simple example is as follows:
> In ARM32 architecture:
> [<ffffff80083cb3f8>] proc_pid_stack+0xac/0x12c
> [<ffffff80083c7c70>] proc_single_show+0x5c/0xa8
> [<ffffff800838aca8>] seq_read+0x130/0x420
> [<ffffff8008365c54>] __vfs_read+0x60/0x11c
> [<ffffff80083665dc>] vfs_read+0x8c/0x140
> [<ffffff800836717c>] SyS_read+0x6c/0xcc
> [<ffffff8008202cb8>] __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x4
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> 
> In some other architectures(ARM64):
> [<ffffff8008209be0>] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0xf0
> [<ffffff80083cb3f8>] proc_pid_stack+0xac/0x12c
> [<ffffff80083c7c70>] proc_single_show+0x5c/0xa8
> [<ffffff800838aca8>] seq_read+0x130/0x420
> [<ffffff8008365c54>] __vfs_read+0x60/0x11c
> [<ffffff80083665dc>] vfs_read+0x8c/0x140
> [<ffffff800836717c>] SyS_read+0x6c/0xcc
> [<ffffff8008202cb8>] __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x4
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> 
> Therefore, we'd better just jump only one layer to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Why do we want to log the function we called to save the stack trace
_in_ the stack trace?  What useful purpose does it serve?

I've always taken the attitude that if we want a stack trace from a
certain point in the function, then that's the point that the stack
trace should start.  It's entirely sensible.

> 
> Signed-off-by: liucheng <liucheng32@...wei.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 71778bb..bb3da38 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static noinline void __save_stack_trace(struct task_struct *tsk,
>  #endif
>  	} else {
>  		/* We don't want this function nor the caller */
> -		data.skip += 2;
> +		data.skip += 1;
>  		frame.fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(0);
>  		frame.sp = current_stack_pointer;
>  		frame.lr = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
> -- 
> 1.8.5.6
> 
> 

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up