[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210929211023.runlsoqfto7hrl36@treble>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:10:23 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Vito Caputo <vcaputo@...garu.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kenta.Tada@...y.com" <Kenta.Tada@...y.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Michael Weiß <michael.weiss@...ec.fraunhofer.de>,
Anand K Mistry <amistry@...gle.com>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
Ohhoon Kwon <ohoono.kwon@...sung.com>,
Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Disable /proc/$pid/wchan
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:40:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:54:55AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > > > > > > It's supposed to show where a blocked task is blocked; the "wait
> > > > > > > channel".
>
> > Since I think we're considering get_wchan() to be slow-path, can we just
> > lock the runqueue and use arch_stack_walk_reliable()?
>
> Funny thing, when a task is blocked it isn't on the runqueue :-)
>
> So if all we want to do is capture a blocked task and fail otherwise we
> don't need the rq->lock at all.
>
> Something like:
>
> unsigned long ip = 0;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
> state = READ_ONCE(p->__state);
> smp_rmb(); /* see try_to_wake_up() */
> if (state == TASK_RUNNING || state == TASK_WAKING || p->on_rq)
> goto unlock;
>
> ip = /* do actual stack walk on a blocked task */
> unlock:
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
>
> return ip;
Ah, cool :-)
I'd also add that I don't see any reason to use the "reliable" unwinding
variant. AFAIK, just basic stack_trace_save_tsk() should be sufficient.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists