[PATCH v8 3/4] arm64: Add do_softirq_own_stack() and enable irq_stacks

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:47:03AM +0000, James Morse wrote:
> On 08/12/15 17:23, James Morse wrote:
> > My only theory is that there is an off by one, and its reading what was
> > x29 instead. This wouldn't show up in these tests, but might be a
> > problem for aarch32 user-space, as presumably x29==0 when it switches to
> > aarch64 mode for el0_irq(). I will try this tomorrow.
> 
> Yup, this is what is happening. Its an off-by-one due to broken thinking
> about how the stack works. My broken thinking was:
> 
> >   top ------------
> >       | dummy_lr | <- irq_stack_ptr
> >       ------------
> >       |   x29    |
> >       ------------
> >       |   x19    | <- irq_stack_ptr - 0x10
> >       ------------
> >       |   xzr    |
> >       ------------
> 
> But the stack-pointer is decreased before use. So it actually looks like
> this:
> 
> >       ------------
> >       |          |  <- irq_stack_ptr
> >   top ------------
> >       | dummy_lr |
> >       ------------
> >       |   x29    | <- irq_stack_ptr - 0x10
> >       ------------
> >       |   x19    |
> >       ------------
> >       |   xzr    | <- irq_stack_ptr - 0x20
> >       ------------
> 
> The value being used as the original stack is x29, which in all the
> tests is sp but without the current frames data, hence there are no
> missing frames in the output.
> 
> Jungseok Lee picked it up with a 32bit user space because aarch32 can't
> use x29, so it remains 0 forever. The fix he posted is correct.
> 
> Will: do you want to take Jungseok Lee's patch as a 'Fixes:', or is it
> easier if I repost the series?

I'll take it as a fix on top, but I still want to get to the bottom of
why unwind_frame appeared to be exploding. We really shouldn't be relying
on the frame layout to provide us with safe addresses in there.

Will