On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:56:02AM -0600, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Copy the task argument passed to arch_stack_walk() to unwind_state so that
> it can be passed to unwind functions via unwind_state rather than as a
> separate argument. The task is a fundamental part of the unwind state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h | 3 +++
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> index 41ec360515f6..af423f5d7ad8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ struct stack_info {
> * @kr_cur: When KRETPROBES is selected, holds the kretprobe instance
> * associated with the most recently encountered replacement lr
> * value.
> + *
> + * @task: Pointer to the task structure.
Can we please say:
@task: The task being unwound.
> */
> struct unwind_state {
> unsigned long fp;
> @@ -61,6 +63,7 @@ struct unwind_state {
> #ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
> struct llist_node *kr_cur;
> #endif
> + struct task_struct *task;
> };
>
> extern void dump_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk,
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index b2b568e5deba..1b32e55735aa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -33,8 +33,10 @@
> */
>
>
> -static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
> +static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state,
> + struct task_struct *task)
> {
> + state->task = task;
> #ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
> state->kr_cur = NULL;
> #endif
> @@ -57,9 +59,10 @@ static void unwind_init_common(struct unwind_state *state)
> * TODO: document requirements here.
> */
> static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
> + struct task_struct *task,
Please drop the `task` parameter here ...
> struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> - unwind_init_common(state);
> + unwind_init_common(state, task);
... and make this:
unwind_init_common(state, current);
... since that way it's *impossible* to have ismatched parameters, which is one
of the reasons for having separate functions in the first place.
> state->fp = regs->regs[29];
> state->pc = regs->pc;
> @@ -71,9 +74,10 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
> * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
> * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
> */
> -static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_current(struct unwind_state *state)
> +static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_current(struct unwind_state *state,
> + struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - unwind_init_common(state);
> + unwind_init_common(state, task);
Same comments as for unwind_init_from_regs(): please drop the `task` parameter
and hard-code `current` in the call to unwind_init_common().
> state->fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
> state->pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
> @@ -87,7 +91,7 @@ static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_current(struct unwind_state *state)
> static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
> struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - unwind_init_common(state);
> + unwind_init_common(state, task);
>
> state->fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
> state->pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
> @@ -100,11 +104,11 @@ static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
> * records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
> * and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
> */
> -static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
> - struct unwind_state *state)
> +static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
> {
> unsigned long fp = state->fp;
> struct stack_info info;
> + struct task_struct *tsk = state->task;
>
> /* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
> if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
> @@ -176,8 +180,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
> }
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
>
> -static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
> - struct unwind_state *state,
> +static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
> bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
> {
> while (1) {
> @@ -185,7 +188,7 @@ static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
>
> if (!fn(data, state->pc))
> break;
> - ret = unwind_next(tsk, state);
> + ret = unwind_next(state);
> if (ret < 0)
> break;
> }
> @@ -232,11 +235,11 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> struct unwind_state state;
>
> if (regs)
> - unwind_init_from_regs(&state, regs);
> + unwind_init_from_regs(&state, task, regs);
> else if (task == current)
> - unwind_init_from_current(&state);
> + unwind_init_from_current(&state, task);
> else
> unwind_init_from_task(&state, task);
As above we shouldn't need these two changes.
For the regs case we might want to sanity-check that task == current.
> - unwind(task, &state, consume_entry, cookie);
> + unwind(&state, consume_entry, cookie);
Otherwise, this looks good to me.
Thanks,
Mark.
