[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230305135207.1793266-8-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2023 08:51:59 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, npiggin@...il.com,
keescook@...omium.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org, Jason@...c4.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, jniethe5@...il.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.2 08/16] powerpc: Remove __kernel_text_address() in show_instructions()
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
[ Upstream commit d9ab6da64fd15608c9feb20d769d8df1a32fe212 ]
That test was introducted in 2006 by
commit 00ae36de49cc ("[POWERPC] Better check in show_instructions").
At that time, there was no BPF progs.
As seen in message of commit 89d21e259a94 ("powerpc/bpf/32: Fix Oops
on tail call tests"), when a page fault occurs in test_bpf.ko for
instance, the code is dumped as XXXXXXXXs. Allthough
__kernel_text_address() checks is_bpf_text_address(), it seems it is
not enough.
Today, show_instructions() uses get_kernel_nofault() to read the code,
so there is no real need for additional verifications.
ARM64 and x86 don't do any additional check before dumping
instructions. Do the same and remove __kernel_text_address()
in show_instructions().
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/4fd69ef7945518c3e27f96b95046a5c1468d35bf.1675245773.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
index c22cc234672f9..effe9697905dc 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
@@ -1405,8 +1405,7 @@ static void show_instructions(struct pt_regs *regs)
for (i = 0; i < NR_INSN_TO_PRINT; i++) {
int instr;
- if (!__kernel_text_address(pc) ||
- get_kernel_nofault(instr, (const void *)pc)) {
+ if (get_kernel_nofault(instr, (const void *)pc)) {
pr_cont("XXXXXXXX ");
} else {
if (nip == pc)
--
2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists