From: Matthew Bystrin <dev.mbstr@gmail.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] riscv: stacktrace: fixed walk_stackframe()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:03:21 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240521131314.48895-1-dev.mbstr@gmail.com> (raw)
If the load access fault occures in a leaf function (with
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y), when wrong stack trace will be displayed:
[<ffffffff804853c2>] regmap_mmio_read32le+0xe/0x1c
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
Registers dump:
ra 0xffffffff80485758 <regmap_mmio_read+36>
sp 0xffffffc80200b9a0
fp 0xffffffc80200b9b0
pc 0xffffffff804853ba <regmap_mmio_read32le+6>
Stack dump:
0xffffffc80200b9a0: 0xffffffc80200b9e0 0xffffffc80200b9e0
0xffffffc80200b9b0: 0xffffffff8116d7e8 0x0000000000000100
0xffffffc80200b9c0: 0xffffffd8055b9400 0xffffffd8055b9400
0xffffffc80200b9d0: 0xffffffc80200b9f0 0xffffffff8047c526
0xffffffc80200b9e0: 0xffffffc80200ba30 0xffffffff8047fe9a
The assembler dump of the function preambula:
add sp,sp,-16
sd s0,8(sp)
add s0,sp,16
In the fist stack frame, where ra is not stored on the stack we can
observe:
0(sp) 8(sp)
.---------------------------------------------.
sp->| frame->fp | frame->ra (saved fp) |
|---------------------------------------------|
fp->| .... | .... |
|---------------------------------------------|
| | |
and in the code check is performed:
if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7))
I see no reason to check frame->fp value at all, because it is can be
uninitialized value on the stack. A better way is to check frame->ra to
be an address on the stack. After the stacktrace shows as expect:
[<ffffffff804853c2>] regmap_mmio_read32le+0xe/0x1c
[<ffffffff80485758>] regmap_mmio_read+0x24/0x52
[<ffffffff8047c526>] _regmap_bus_reg_read+0x1a/0x22
[<ffffffff8047fe9a>] _regmap_read+0x5c/0xea
[<ffffffff80480376>] _regmap_update_bits+0x76/0xc0
...
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
Fixes: f766f77a74f5 ("riscv/stacktrace: Fix stack output without ra on the stack top")
Signed-off-by: Matthew Bystrin <dev.mbstr@gmail.com>
---
As pointed by Samuel Holland it is incorrect to remove check of the stackframe
entirely.
Changes since v1 [1]:
- Instead of just dropping frame->fp check, replace it with validation of
frame->ra, which should be a stack address.
- Move frame pointer validation into the separate function.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20240426072701.6463-1-dev.mbstr@gmail.com/
arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 64a9c093aef9..80f6559b6654 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -18,6 +18,16 @@
extern asmlinkage void ret_from_exception(void);
+static inline int fp_is_valid(unsigned long fp, unsigned long sp)
+{
+ unsigned long low, high;
+
+ low = sp + sizeof(struct stackframe);
+ high = ALIGN(sp, THREAD_SIZE);
+
+ return !(fp < low || fp > high || fp & 0x07);
+}
+
void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *arg)
{
@@ -41,21 +51,19 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
}
for (;;) {
- unsigned long low, high;
struct stackframe *frame;
if (unlikely(!__kernel_text_address(pc) || (level++ >= 0 && !fn(arg, pc))))
break;
- /* Validate frame pointer */
- low = sp + sizeof(struct stackframe);
- high = ALIGN(sp, THREAD_SIZE);
- if (unlikely(fp < low || fp > high || fp & 0x7))
+ if (unlikely(!fp_is_valid(fp, sp)))
break;
+
/* Unwind stack frame */
frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
sp = fp;
- if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
+ if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && fp_is_valid(frame->ra, sp))
+ /* We hit function where ra is not saved on the stack */
fp = frame->ra;
pc = regs->ra;
} else {
--
2.43.0
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
reply other threads:[~2024-05-21 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240521131314.48895-1-dev.mbstr@gmail.com \
--to=dev.mbstr@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=samuel.holland@sifive.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.