On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:18:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:06:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:50:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I really don't think the WCHAN code should use unwinders at all. It's
> > > > > too damn fragile, and it's too easily triggered from user space.
> > > >
> > > > On x86, esp. with ORC, it pretty much has to. The thing is, the ORC
> > > > unwinder has been very stable so far. I'm guessing there's some really
> > > > stupid thing going on, like for example trying to unwind a freed stack.
> > > >
> > > > I *just* managed to reproduce, so let me go have a poke.
> > >
> > > Confirmed, with the below it no longer reproduces. Now, let me go undo
> > > that and fix the unwinder to not explode while trying to unwind nothing.
> >
> > OK, so the bug is firmly with 5d1ceb3969b6 ("x86: Fix __get_wchan() for
> > !STACKTRACE") which lost the try_get_task_stack() that stack_trace_*()
> > does.
> >
> > We can ofc trivially re-instate that, but I'm now running with the
> > below which I suppose is a better fix, hmm?
> >
> > (obv I still need to look a the other two unwinders)
>
> I now have the below, the only thing missing is that there's a
> user_mode() call on a stack based regs. Now on x86_64 we can
> __get_kernel_nofault() regs->cs and call it a day, but on i386 we have
> to also fetch regs->flags.
>
> Is this really the way to go?
Please no. Can we just add a check in unwind_start() to ensure the
caller did try_get_task_stack()?
--
Josh
