Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 01:00:38AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > tl;dr: On ppc64le, what is top-most stack frame for scheduled tasks >> > about? >> >> If I'm reading the code in _switch() correctly, the first frame is >> completely uninitialized except for the pointer back to the caller's >> stack frame. >> >> For completeness: _switch() saves the return address, i.e. the link >> register into its parent's stack frame, as is mandated by the ABI and >> consistent with your findings below: it's always the second stack frame >> where the return address into __switch_to() is kept. >> > > Hi Nicolai, > > Good, that makes a lot of sense. I couldn't find any reference > explaining the contents of frame 0, only unwinding code here and there > (as in crash-utility) that stepped over it. FWIW, I learned about general stack frame usage on ppc from part 4 of the introductionary series starting at [1]: it's a good reading and I can definitely recommend it. Summary: - Callers of other functions always allocate a stack frame and only set the pointer to the previous stack frame (that's the 'stdu r1, -STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD(r1)' insn). - Callees save their stuff into the stack frame allocated by the caller if needed. Where "if needed" == callee in turn calls another function. The insignificance of frame 0's contents follows from this ABI: the caller might not have called any callee yet, the callee might be a leaf and so on. Finally, as I understand it, the only purpose of _switch() creating a standard stack frame at the bottom of scheduled out tasks is that the higher ones can be found (for e.g. the backtracing): otherwise there would be a pt_regs at the bottom of the stack. But I might be wrong here. >> <snip> >> >> > >> > >> > Example 1 (RHEL-7) >> > ================== >> > >> > crash> struct task_struct.thread c00000022fd015c0 | grep ksp >> > ksp = 0xc0000000288af9c0 >> > >> > crash> rd 0xc0000000288af9c0 -e 0xc0000000288b0000 >> > >> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> > >> > sp[0]: >> > >> > c0000000288af9c0: c0000000288afb90 0000000000dd0000 ...(............ >> > c0000000288af9d0: c000000000002a94 c000000001c60a00 .*.............. >> > >> > crash> sym c000000000002a94 >> > c000000000002a94 (T) hardware_interrupt_common+0x114 >> >> So that c000000000002a94 certainly wasn't stored by _switch(). I think >> what might have happened is that the switching frame aliased with some >> prior interrupt frame as setup by hardware_interrupt_common(). >> >> The interrupt and switching frames seem to share a common layout as far >> as the lower STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD + sizeof(struct pt_regs) bytes are >> concerned. >> >> That address into hardware_interrupt_common() could have been written by >> the do_IRQ() called from there. >> > > That was my initial theory, but then when I saw an ordinary scheduled > task with a similarly strange frame 0, I thought that _switch() might > have been doing something clever (or not). But according your earlier > explanation, it would line up that these values may be inherited from > do_IRQ() or the like. > >> >> > c0000000288af9e0: c000000001c60a80 0000000000000000 ................ >> > c0000000288af9f0: c0000000288afbc0 0000000000dd0000 ...(............ >> > c0000000288afa00: c0000000014322e0 c000000001c60a00 ."C............. >> > c0000000288afa10: c0000002303ae380 c0000002303ae380 ..:0......:0.... >> > c0000000288afa20: 7265677368657265 0000000000002200 erehsger."...... >> > >> > Uh-oh... >> > >> > /* Mark stacktraces with exception frames as unreliable. */ >> > stack[STACK_FRAME_MARKER] == STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER >> >> >> Aliasing of the switching stack frame with some prior interrupt stack >> frame would explain why that STACK_FRAME_REGS_MARKER is still found on >> the stack, i.e. it's a leftover. >> >> For testing, could you try whether clearing the word at STACK_FRAME_MARKER >> from _switch() helps? >> >> I.e. something like (completely untested): > > I'll kick off some builds tonight and try to get tests lined up > tomorrow. Unfortunately these take a bit of time to run setup, schedule > and complete, so perhaps by next week. Ok, that's probably still a good test for confirmation, but the solution you proposed below is much better. >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S >> index 435927f549c4..b747d0647ec4 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S >> @@ -596,6 +596,10 @@ _GLOBAL(_switch) >> SAVE_8GPRS(14, r1) >> SAVE_10GPRS(22, r1) >> std r0,_NIP(r1) /* Return to switch caller */ >> + >> + li r23,0 >> + std r23,96(r1) /* 96 == STACK_FRAME_MARKER * sizeof(long) */ >> + >> mfcr r23 >> std r23,_CCR(r1) >> std r1,KSP(r3) /* Set old stack pointer */ >> >> > > This may be sufficient to avoid the condition, but if the contents of > frame 0 are truely uninitialized (not to be trusted), should the > unwinder be even looking at that frame (for STACK_FRAMES_REGS_MARKER), > aside from the LR and other stack size geometry sanity checks? That's a very good point: we'll only ever be examining scheduled out tasks and current (which at that time is running klp_try_complete_transition()). current won't be in an interrupt/exception when it's walking its own stack. And scheduled out tasks can't have an exception/interrupt frame as their frame 0, correct? Thus, AFAICS, whenever klp_try_complete_transition() finds a STACK_FRAMES_REGS_MARKER in frame 0, it is known to be garbage, as you said. Thanks, Nicolai [1] https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-powasm1/index.html -- SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
