Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Christophe Leroy <> | Subject | [PATCH v2 1/9] powerpc: Remove __kernel_text_address() in show_instructions() | Date | Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:04:23 +0100 |
| |
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@csgroup.eu> --- 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 c22cc234672f..effe9697905d 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) -- 2.39.1
| |