All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: james.morse@arm.com (James Morse)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for function graph tracing
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:54:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <59B7AED4.1070106@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3c175a7a1f7c2e08098f6d5e84dc247ce94846d2.1504244801.git.panand@redhat.com>

Hi Pratyush,

On 01/09/17 06:48, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> do_task_stat() calls get_wchan(), which further does unbind_frame().
> unbind_frame() restores frame->pc to original value in case function
> graph tracer has modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame to hook
> a function return. However, if function graph tracer has hit a filtered
> function, then we can't unwind it as ftrace_push_return_trace() has
> biased the index(frame->graph) with a 'huge negative'
> offset(-FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH).
> 
> Moreover, arm64 stack walker defines index(frame->graph) as unsigned
> int, which can not compare a -ve number.
> 
> Similar problem we can have with calling of walk_stackframe() from
> save_stack_trace_tsk() or dump_backtrace().
> 
> This patch fixes unwind_frame() to test the index for -ve value and
> restore index accordingly before we can restore frame->pc.

I've just spotted arm64's profile_pc, which does this:
>From arch/arm64/kernel/time.c:profile_pc():
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> 	frame.graph = -1; /* no task info */
> #endif

Is this another elaborate way of hitting this problem?

I guess the options are skip any return-address restore in the unwinder if
frame.graph is -1. (and profile_pc may have a bug here). Or, put
current->curr_ret_stack in there.

profile_pc() always passes tsk=NULL, so the unwinder assumes its current...
kernel/profile.c pulls the pt_regs from a per-cpu irq_regs variable, that is
updated by handle_IPI ... so it looks like this should always be current...


Thanks,

James


> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 09d37d66b630..4c47147d0554 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,9 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>  	if (tsk->ret_stack &&
>  			(frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)) {
> +		if (frame->graph < 0)
> +			frame->graph += FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH;
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * This is a case where function graph tracer has
>  		 * modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
To: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for function graph tracing
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:54:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <59B7AED4.1070106@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3c175a7a1f7c2e08098f6d5e84dc247ce94846d2.1504244801.git.panand@redhat.com>

Hi Pratyush,

On 01/09/17 06:48, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> do_task_stat() calls get_wchan(), which further does unbind_frame().
> unbind_frame() restores frame->pc to original value in case function
> graph tracer has modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame to hook
> a function return. However, if function graph tracer has hit a filtered
> function, then we can't unwind it as ftrace_push_return_trace() has
> biased the index(frame->graph) with a 'huge negative'
> offset(-FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH).
> 
> Moreover, arm64 stack walker defines index(frame->graph) as unsigned
> int, which can not compare a -ve number.
> 
> Similar problem we can have with calling of walk_stackframe() from
> save_stack_trace_tsk() or dump_backtrace().
> 
> This patch fixes unwind_frame() to test the index for -ve value and
> restore index accordingly before we can restore frame->pc.

I've just spotted arm64's profile_pc, which does this:
>From arch/arm64/kernel/time.c:profile_pc():
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> 	frame.graph = -1; /* no task info */
> #endif

Is this another elaborate way of hitting this problem?

I guess the options are skip any return-address restore in the unwinder if
frame.graph is -1. (and profile_pc may have a bug here). Or, put
current->curr_ret_stack in there.

profile_pc() always passes tsk=NULL, so the unwinder assumes its current...
kernel/profile.c pulls the pt_regs from a per-cpu irq_regs variable, that is
updated by handle_IPI ... so it looks like this should always be current...


Thanks,

James


> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 09d37d66b630..4c47147d0554 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,9 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>  	if (tsk->ret_stack &&
>  			(frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)) {
> +		if (frame->graph < 0)
> +			frame->graph += FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH;
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * This is a case where function graph tracer has
>  		 * modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-12  9:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-01  5:48 [PATCH v2] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for function graph tracing Pratyush Anand
2017-09-01  5:48 ` Pratyush Anand
2017-09-12  9:54 ` James Morse [this message]
2017-09-12  9:54   ` James Morse
2017-09-13  2:42   ` Will Deacon
2017-09-13  2:42     ` Will Deacon
2017-09-13  4:59     ` Pratyush Anand
2017-09-13  4:59       ` Pratyush Anand

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=59B7AED4.1070106@arm.com \
    --to=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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.