Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/18] x86/asm/head: standardize the bottom of the stack for idle tasks

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:46:10PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Thanks to all the recent x86 entry code refactoring, most tasks' kernel
> > stacks start at the same offset right above their saved pt_regs,
> > regardless of which syscall was used to enter the kernel.  That creates
> > a nice convention which makes it straightforward to identify the
> > "bottom" of the stack, which can be useful for stack walking code which
> > needs to verify the stack is sane.
> >
> > However there are still a few types of tasks which don't yet follow that
> > convention:
> >
> > 1) CPU idle tasks, aka the "swapper" tasks
> >
> > 2) freshly forked TIF_FORK tasks which don't have a stack at all
> >
> > Make the idle tasks conform to the new stack bottom convention by
> > starting their stack at a sizeof(pt_regs) offset from the end of the
> > stack page.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S | 7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
> > index 6dbd2c0..0b12311 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
> > @@ -296,8 +296,9 @@ ENTRY(start_cpu)
> >          *      REX.W + FF /5 JMP m16:64 Jump far, absolute indirect,
> >          *              address given in m16:64.
> >          */
> > -       movq    initial_code(%rip),%rax
> > -       pushq   $0              # fake return address to stop unwinder
> > +       call    1f              # put return address on stack for unwinder
> > +1:     xorq    %rbp, %rbp      # clear frame pointer
> > +       movq    initial_code(%rip), %rax
> >         pushq   $__KERNEL_CS    # set correct cs
> >         pushq   %rax            # target address in negative space
> >         lretq
> 
> This chunk looks like it should be a separate patch.

Agreed, thanks.

-- 
Josh