lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: stacktrace: Skip frame pointer boundary check for call_with_stack()
From
Date
Hi Linus, sorry for the late reply.

On 2022/7/18 16:57, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 4:18 AM Li Huafei <lihuafei1@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> When using the frame pointer unwinder, it was found that the stack trace
>> output of stack_trace_save() is incomplete if the stack contains
>> call_with_stack():
>>
>> [0x7f00002c] dump_stack_task+0x2c/0x90 [hrtimer]
>> [0x7f0000a0] hrtimer_hander+0x10/0x18 [hrtimer]
>> [0x801a67f0] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1b0/0x3b4
>> [0x801a7350] hrtimer_run_queues+0xc4/0xd8
>> [0x801a597c] update_process_times+0x3c/0x88
>> [0x801b5a98] tick_periodic+0x50/0xd8
>> [0x801b5bf4] tick_handle_periodic+0x24/0x84
>> [0x8010ffc4] twd_handler+0x38/0x48
>> [0x8017d220] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0xa8/0x244
>> [0x80176e9c] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x2c/0x3c
>> [0x8052e3a8] gic_handle_irq+0x7c/0x90
>> [0x808ab15c] generic_handle_arch_irq+0x60/0x80
>> [0x8051191c] call_with_stack+0x1c/0x20
>>
>> For the frame pointer unwinder, unwind_frame() checks stackframe::fp by
>> stackframe::sp. Since call_with_stack() switches the SP from one stack
>> to another, stackframe::fp and stackframe: :sp will point to different
>> stacks, so we can no longer check stackframe::fp by stackframe::sp. Skip
>> checking stackframe::fp at this point to avoid this problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@huawei.com>
> Very nice catch! Took me some time to realize what was
> going on here.

Yeah, it took me some time to discover the cause of the problem too.

>
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Thanks!

>
> Nitpick below:
>
>> + /*
>> + * call_with_stack() is the only place we allow SP to jump from one
>> + * stack to another, with FP and SP pointing to different stacks,
>> + * skipping the FP boundary check at this point.
>> + */
>> + if (pc >= (unsigned long)&call_with_stack &&
>> + pc < (unsigned long)&call_with_stack_end)
>> + return 0;
> Can we create a local helper macro to do this, if it needs to happen
> some other time?

Hopefully this won't come up again.:(

Maybe it would be better to define a macro when this happens?


Thanks,

Huafei

>
> #define ARM_PC_IN_FUNCTION(pc, func) (pc >=. ...)
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
> .

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-26 10:11    [W:2.106 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site