[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200608231211.3363633-199-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 19:05:24 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.6 199/606] x86/unwind/orc: Fix unwind_get_return_address_ptr() for inactive tasks
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
commit 187b96db5ca79423618dfa29a05c438c34f9e1f0 upstream.
Normally, show_trace_log_lvl() scans the stack, looking for text
addresses to print. In parallel, it unwinds the stack with
unwind_next_frame(). If the stack address matches the pointer returned
by unwind_get_return_address_ptr() for the current frame, the text
address is printed normally without a question mark. Otherwise it's
considered a breadcrumb (potentially from a previous call path) and it's
printed with a question mark to indicate that the address is unreliable
and typically can be ignored.
Since the following commit:
f1d9a2abff66 ("x86/unwind/orc: Don't skip the first frame for inactive tasks")
... for inactive tasks, show_trace_log_lvl() prints *only* unreliable
addresses (prepended with '?').
That happens because, for the first frame of an inactive task,
unwind_get_return_address_ptr() returns the wrong return address
pointer: one word *below* the task stack pointer. show_trace_log_lvl()
starts scanning at the stack pointer itself, so it never finds the first
'reliable' address, causing only guesses to being printed.
The first frame of an inactive task isn't a normal stack frame. It's
actually just an instance of 'struct inactive_task_frame' which is left
behind by __switch_to_asm(). Now that this inactive frame is actually
exposed to callers, fix unwind_get_return_address_ptr() to interpret it
properly.
Fixes: f1d9a2abff66 ("x86/unwind/orc: Don't skip the first frame for inactive tasks")
Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200522135435.vbxs7umku5pyrdbk@treble
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
index 9414f02a55ea..1a90abeca5f3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
@@ -314,12 +314,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unwind_get_return_address);
unsigned long *unwind_get_return_address_ptr(struct unwind_state *state)
{
+ struct task_struct *task = state->task;
+
if (unwind_done(state))
return NULL;
if (state->regs)
return &state->regs->ip;
+ if (task != current && state->sp == task->thread.sp) {
+ struct inactive_task_frame *frame = (void *)task->thread.sp;
+ return &frame->ret_addr;
+ }
+
if (state->sp)
return (unsigned long *)state->sp - 1;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists