[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUWNsu4BAFVVAqDo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 08:56:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"open list:PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM"
<linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)"
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, jroedel@...e.de, x86@...nel.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/dumpstack/64: Add guard pages to stack_info
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:30:42AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> > Andy suggested something like this.
>
> Now it seem like working well :-)
Thanks for sticking with it and testing all that over and over!
> [ 193.100475][ C0] BUG: NMI stack guard page was hit at 0000000085fd977b (stack is 000000003a55b09e..00000000d8cce1a5)
> [ 193.100493][ C0] stack guard page: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
> [ 193.100499][ C0] CPU: 0 PID: 968 Comm: a.out Not tainted 5.14.0-next-20210913+ #548
> [ 193.100506][ C0] Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011
> [ 193.100510][ C0] RIP: 0010:perf_swevent_get_recursion_context+0x0/0x70
> [ 193.100523][ C0] Code: 48 03 43 28 48 8b 0c 24 bb 01 00 00 00 4c 29 f0 48 39 c8 48 0f 47 c1 49 89 45 08 e9 48 ff ff ff 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 <55> 53 e8 09 20 f2 ff 48 c7 c2 20 4d 03 00 65 48 03 15 5a 3b d2 7e
> [ 193.100529][ C0] RSP: 0018:fffffe000000b000 EFLAGS: 00010046
> [ 193.100535][ C0] RAX: 0000000080120006 RBX: fffffe000000b050 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [ 193.100540][ C0] RDX: ffff88810de82180 RSI: ffffffff81269031 RDI: 000000000000001c
> [ 193.100544][ C0] RBP: 000000000000001c R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
> [ 193.100548][ C0] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
> [ 193.100551][ C0] R13: fffffe000000b044 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 0000000000000009
> [ 193.100556][ C0] FS: 00007fa18c42d740(0000) GS:ffff88813bc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 193.100562][ C0] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 193.100566][ C0] CR2: fffffe000000aff8 CR3: 00000001160ac005 CR4: 00000000003606f0
> [ 193.100570][ C0] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 193.100574][ C0] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 193.100578][ C0] Call Trace:
> [ 193.100581][ C0] <NMI>
> [ 193.100584][ C0] perf_trace_buf_alloc+0x26/0xd0
> [ 193.100597][ C0] ? is_prefetch.isra.25+0x260/0x260
> [ 193.100605][ C0] ? __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x1b8/0x280
> [ 193.100611][ C0] perf_ftrace_function_call+0x18f/0x2e0
>
>
> Tested-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> BTW, would you like to apply the other patch which increasing exception
> stack size after this one?
Yes, I have that queued behind it :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists