[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220416005609.3znhltjlhpg475ff@treble>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:56:09 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>
Cc: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>,
mark.rutland@....com, broonie@...nel.org, ardb@...nel.org,
nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com, sjitindarsingh@...il.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/9] arm64: livepatch: Use DWARF Call Frame
Information for frame pointer validation
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:32:22PM +0800, Chen Zhongjin wrote:
> By the way, I was thinking about a corner case, because arm64 CALL
> instruction won't push LR onto stack atomically as x86. Before push LR, FP
> to save frame there still can be some instructions such as bti, paciasp. If
> an irq happens here, the stack frame is not constructed so the FP unwinder
> will omit this function and provides a wrong stack trace to livepatch.
>
> It's just a guess and I have not built the test case. But I think it's a
> defect on arm64 that FP unwinder can't work properly on prologue and
> epilogue. Do you have any idea about this?
x86 has similar issues with frame pointers, if for example preemption or
page fault exception occurs in a leaf function, or in a function
prologue or epilogue, before or after the frame pointer setup.
This issue is solved by the "reliable" unwinder which detects
irqs/exceptions on the stack and reports the stack as unreliable.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists