Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: Rewrite ret_from_fork() in C

Peter Zijlstra
2023-07-20T05:22:39Z

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 04:31:11PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:50:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The below cures things; Josh, did I miss anything?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> > > index 91f6818884fa..cfe7882ea9ae 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> > > @@ -285,7 +285,14 @@ SYM_FUNC_END(__switch_to_asm)
> > > */
> > > .pushsection .text, "ax"
> > > SYM_CODE_START(ret_from_fork_asm)
> > > - UNWIND_HINT_REGS
> > > + /*
> > > + * This is the start of the kernel stack; even through there's a regs
> > > + * set at the top, there is no real exception frame and one cannot
> > > + * unwind further. This is the end.
> > > + *
> > > + * This ensures stack unwinds of kernel threads hit a known good state.
> > > + */
> > > + UNWIND_HINT_END_OF_STACK
>
> The comments may be a bit superfluous (to me at least) but the patch
> looks fine.

Right, well, it took me a minute to figure out how it was all supposed
to work, I figured I'd stick a comment on it.

The bit I missed is that if you reach the return-to-user part, you will
actually have user_mode() true on the regset.

> > So unwind_orc.c:unwind_next_frame() will terminate on this hint *or* on
> > user_mode(state->regs).
> >
> > AFAICT way things are set up in copy_thread(), user_mode() will not be
> > true -- after all there is no usermode, the kthread would first have to
> > exec() something to create a usermode.
> >
> > Yet I'm wondering if perhaps we should spoof the regs to make
> > user_mode() true and auto-terminate without this explicit hint.
>
> I'm not sure that would be worth the trouble / cleverness. The hint is
> straightforward IMO.

I tried, it doesn't work, clearly I missed something.