Live Patching
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:28:06 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201020162806.6kl6japxkij7dzel@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201020153913.GE9448@sirena.org.uk>

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 06:41:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:15:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Ah, I'd have interpreted "defined thread entry point" as meaning
> > > expecting to find specific functions appering at the end of the stack
> > > rather than meaning positively identifying the end of the stack - for
> > > arm64 we use a NULL frame pointer to indicate this in all situations.
> > > In that case that's one bit that is already clear.
> 
> > I think a NULL frame pointer isn't going to be robust enough.  For
> > example NULL could easily be introduced by a corrupt stack, or by asm
> > frame pointer misuse.
> 
> Is it just the particular poison value that you're concerned about here
> or are you looking for additional checks of some other kind?

You just need to know you've conclusively reached the user entry point
on the stack, without missing any functions.

A sufficiently unique poison value might be ok.  Though, defining a
certain stack offset as the "end" seems more robust.

-- 
Josh


      reply	other threads:[~2020-10-20 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20201012172605.10715-1-broonie@kernel.org>
     [not found] ` <alpine.LSU.2.21.2010151533490.14094@pobox.suse.cz>
     [not found]   ` <20201015141612.GC50416@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
     [not found]     ` <20201015154951.GD4390@sirena.org.uk>
2020-10-15 21:29       ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-16 11:14         ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-20 10:03           ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-20 15:58             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-16 12:15         ` Mark Brown
2020-10-19 23:41           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-20 15:39             ` Mark Brown
2020-10-20 16:28               ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]

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=20201020162806.6kl6japxkij7dzel@treble \
    --to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
    --cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox