On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:23:48PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 14:06, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:58:35PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > > There is one thing that I thing we should improve as a subsequent > > cleanup, but I don't think that should block this as-is. > > > > > +#define KFENCE_SKIP_ARCH_FAULT_HANDLER "el1_sync" > > > > IIUC, the core kfence code is using this to figure out where to trace > > from when there's a fault taken on an access to a protected page. > > Correct. > > > It would be better if the arch code passed the exception's pt_regs into > > the kfence fault handler, and the kfence began the trace began from > > there. That would also allow for dumping the exception registers which > > can help with debugging (e.g. figuring out how the address was derived > > when it's calculated from multiple source registers). That would also be > > a bit more robust to changes in an architectures' exception handling > > code. > > Good idea, thanks. I guess there's no reason to not want to always > skip to instruction_pointer(regs)? I don't think we need the exception handling gunk in the trace, but note that you'd need to use stack_trace_save_regs(regs, ...) directly, rather than using stack_trace_save() and skipping based on instruction_pointer(regs). Otherwise, if the fault was somewhere in an exception handler, and we invoked the same function on the path to the kfence fault handler we might cut the trace at the wrong point. > In which case I can prepare a patch to make this change. If this > should go into a v8, please let me know. But it'd be easier as a > subsequent patch as you say, given it'll be easier to review and these > patches are in -mm now. I think it'd make more sense as a subsequent change, since it's liable to need a cycle or two of review, and I don't think it should block the rest of the series. Thanks, Mark.
