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]
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 20:50:19 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_thread/x86: don't reset 'cs', 'ss', 'ds' and 'es'
 registers for io_threads

On 5/3/21 5:48 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 4:27 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org> wrote:
>>
>> If I remember correctly gdb showed bogus addresses for the backtraces of the io_threads,
>> as some regs where not cleared.
> 
> Yeah, so that patch will make the IO thread have the user stack
> pointer point to the original user stack, but that stack will
> obviously be used by the original thread which means that it will
> contain random stuff on it.
> 
> Doing a
> 
>         childregs->sp = 0;
> 
> is probably a good idea for that PF_IO_WORKER case, since it really
> doesn't have - or need - a user stack.
> 
> Of course, it doesn't really have - or need - any of the other user
> registers either, but once you fill in the segment stuff to make gdb
> happy, you might as well fill it all in using the same code that the
> regular case does.

I tested the below, which is the two combined, with a case that
deliberately has two types of io threads - one for SQPOLL submission,
and one that was created due to async work being needed. gdb attaches
just fine to the creator, with a slight complaint:

Attaching to process 370
[New LWP 371]
[New LWP 372]
Error while reading shared library symbols for /usr/lib/libpthread.so.0:
Cannot find user-level thread for LWP 372: generic error
0x00007f1a74675125 in clock_nanosleep@...BC_2.2.5 () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) info threads
  Id   Target Id             Frame 
* 1    LWP 370 "io_uring"    0x00007f1a74675125 in clock_nanosleep@...BC_2.2.5 ()
   from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
  2    LWP 371 "iou-sqp-370" 0x00007f1a746a7a9d in syscall () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
  3    LWP 372 "io_uring"    0x00007f1a74675125 in clock_nanosleep@...BC_2.2.5 ()
   from /usr/lib/libc.so.6

(gdb) thread 2
[Switching to thread 2 (LWP 371)]
#0  0x00007f1a746a7a9d in syscall () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007f1a746a7a9d in syscall () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
Backtrace stopped: Cannot access memory at address 0x0

(gdb) thread 1
[Switching to thread 1 (LWP 370)]
#0  0x00007f1a74675125 in clock_nanosleep@...BC_2.2.5 () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007f1a74675125 in clock_nanosleep@...BC_2.2.5 () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
#1  0x00007f1a7467a357 in nanosleep () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
#2  0x00007f1a7467a28e in sleep () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
#3  0x000055bd41e929ba in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>)
    at t/io_uring.c:658

which looks very reasonable to me - no backtraces for the io threads, and
no arch complaints.


diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 43cbfc84153a..58987bce90e2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, unsigned long sp, unsigned long arg,
 #endif
 
 	/* Kernel thread ? */
-	if (unlikely(p->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_IO_WORKER))) {
+	if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
 		memset(childregs, 0, sizeof(struct pt_regs));
 		kthread_frame_init(frame, sp, arg);
 		return 0;
@@ -168,6 +168,12 @@ int copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, unsigned long sp, unsigned long arg,
 	if (sp)
 		childregs->sp = sp;
 
+	if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)) {
+		childregs->sp = 0;
+		kthread_frame_init(frame, sp, arg);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
 	task_user_gs(p) = get_user_gs(current_pt_regs());
 #endif


-- 
Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists