Patch "x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc()" has been added to the 5.10-stable tree

[Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc()

to the 5.10-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     x86-stop-playing-stack-games-in-profile_pc.patch
and it can be found in the queue-5.10 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.



commit 5ef4e5e85eb1c8ef69342bf29e6e0d89e79ac204
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Fri Jun 28 14:27:22 2024 -0700

    x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc()
    
    [ Upstream commit 093d9603b60093a9aaae942db56107f6432a5dca ]
    
    The 'profile_pc()' function is used for timer-based profiling, which
    isn't really all that relevant any more to begin with, but it also ends
    up making assumptions based on the stack layout that aren't necessarily
    valid.
    
    Basically, the code tries to account the time spent in spinlocks to the
    caller rather than the spinlock, and while I support that as a concept,
    it's not worth the code complexity or the KASAN warnings when no serious
    profiling is done using timers anyway these days.
    
    And the code really does depend on stack layout that is only true in the
    simplest of cases.  We've lost the comment at some point (I think when
    the 32-bit and 64-bit code was unified), but it used to say:
    
            Assume the lock function has either no stack frame or a copy
            of eflags from PUSHF.
    
    which explains why it just blindly loads a word or two straight off the
    stack pointer and then takes a minimal look at the values to just check
    if they might be eflags or the return pc:
    
            Eflags always has bits 22 and up cleared unlike kernel addresses
    
    but that basic stack layout assumption assumes that there isn't any lock
    debugging etc going on that would complicate the code and cause a stack
    frame.
    
    It causes KASAN unhappiness reported for years by syzkaller [1] and
    others [2].
    
    With no real practical reason for this any more, just remove the code.
    
    Just for historical interest, here's some background commits relating to
    this code from 2006:
    
      0cb91a229364 ("i386: Account spinlocks to the caller during profiling for !FP kernels")
      31679f38d886 ("Simplify profile_pc on x86-64")
    
    and a code unification from 2009:
    
      ef4512882dbe ("x86: time_32/64.c unify profile_pc")
    
    but the basics of this thing actually goes back to before the git tree.
    
    Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=84fe685c02cd112a2ac3 [1]
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAK55_s7Xyq=nh97=K=G1sxueOFrJDAvPOJAL4TPTCAYvmxO9_A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2]
    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
index e42faa792c079..52e1f3f0b361c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
@@ -27,25 +27,7 @@
 
 unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	unsigned long pc = instruction_pointer(regs);
-
-	if (!user_mode(regs) && in_lock_functions(pc)) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
-		return *(unsigned long *)(regs->bp + sizeof(long));
-#else
-		unsigned long *sp = (unsigned long *)regs->sp;
-		/*
-		 * Return address is either directly at stack pointer
-		 * or above a saved flags. Eflags has bits 22-31 zero,
-		 * kernel addresses don't.
-		 */
-		if (sp[0] >> 22)
-			return sp[0];
-		if (sp[1] >> 22)
-			return sp[1];
-#endif
-	}
-	return pc;
+	return instruction_pointer(regs);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(profile_pc);