On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I suppose we could try to rejigger the code so that rbp points to > > > >> pt_regs or similar. > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid doing something like that because it would break > > > > gdb and all the other unwinders who don't know about it. > > > > > > How so? > > > > > > Currently, rbp in the entry code is meaningless. I'm suggesting that, > > > when we do, for example, 'call \do_sym' in idtentry, we point rbp to > > > the pt_regs. Currently it points to something stale (which the > > > dump_stack code might be relying on. Hmm.) But it's probably also > > > safe to assume that if you unwind to the 'call \do_sym', then pt_regs > > > is the next thing on the stack, so just doing the section thing would > > > work. > > > > Yes, rbp is meaningless on the entry from user space. But if an > > in-kernel interrupt occurs (e.g. page fault, preemption) and you have > > nested entry, rbp keeps its old value, right? So the unwinder can walk > > past the nested entry frame and keep going until it gets to the original > > entry. > > Yes. > > It would be nice if we could do better, though, and actually notice > the pt_regs and identify the entry. For example, I'd love to see > "page fault, RIP=xyz" printed in the middle of a stack dump on a > crash. > > Also, I think that just following rbp links will lose the > actual function that took the page fault (or whatever function > pt_regs->ip actually points to). Hm. I think we could fix all that in a more standard way. Whenever a new pt_regs frame gets saved on entry, we could also create a new stack frame which points to a fake kernel_entry() function. That would tell the unwinder there's a pt_regs frame without otherwise breaking frame pointers across the frame. Then I guess we wouldn't need my other solution of putting the idt entries in a special section. How does that sound? > Have you looked at my vdso unwinding test at all? If we could do > something similar for the kernel, IMO it would make testing much more > pleasant. I found it, but I'm not sure what it would mean to do something similar for the kernel. Do you mean doing something like an NMI sampling-based approach where we periodically do a random stack sanity check? (If so, I do have something like that planned.) -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
