On 3/19/21 8:22 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 05:22:49PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

quoted

On 3/18/21 12:40 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

Unless I'm misreading what's going on here this is more trying to set a
type for the stack as a whole than for a specific stack frame.  I'm also
finding this a bit confusing as the unwinder already tracks things it
calls frame types and it handles types that aren't covered here like
SDEI.  At the very least there's a naming issue here.

quoted

Both these frames are on the task stack. So, it is not a stack type.

OTOH it's also not something that applies to every frame but only to the
base frame from each stack which I think was more where I was coming
from there.  In any case, the issue is also that there's already another
thing that the unwinder calls a frame type so there's at least that
collision which needs to be resolved if nothing else.

The base frame from each stack as well as intermediate marker frames such
as the EL1 frame and the Ftrace frame.

As for the frame type, I will try to come up with a better name.

quoted

quoted

Taking a step back though do we want to be tracking this via pt_regs?
It's reliant on us robustly finding the correct pt_regs and on having
the things that make the stack unreliable explicitly go in and set the
appropriate type.  That seems like it will be error prone, I'd been
expecting to do something more like using sections to filter code for
unreliable features based on the addresses of the functions we find on
the stack or similar.  This could still go wrong of course but there's
fewer moving pieces, and especially fewer moving pieces specific to
reliable stack trace.

quoted

In that case, I suggest doing both. That is, check the type as well
as specific functions. For instance, in the EL1 pt_regs, in addition
to the above checks, check the PC against el1_sync(), el1_irq() and
el1_error(). I have suggested this in the cover letter.

quoted

If this is OK with you, we could do that. We want to make really sure that
nothing goes wrong with detecting the exception frame.

...

quoted

If you dislike the frame type, I could remove it and just do the
following checks:

quoted

	FP == pt_regs->regs[29]
	PC == pt_regs->pc
	and the address check against el1_*() functions

quoted

and similar changes for EL0 as well.

quoted

I still think that the frame type check makes it more robust.

Yeah, we know the entry points so they can serve the same role as
checking an explicitly written value.  It does mean one less operation
on exception entry, though I'm not sure that's that a big enough
overhead to actually worry about.  I don't have *super* strong opinons
against adding the explicitly written value other than it being one more
thing we don't otherwise use which we have to get right for reliable
stack trace, there's a greater risk of bitrot if it's not something that
we ever look at outside of the reliable stack trace code.

So, I will add the address checks for robustness. I will think some more
about the frame type.

quoted

quoted

quoted

EL1_FRAME
	EL1 exception frame.

quoted

quoted

We do trap into EL2 as well, the patch will track EL2 frames as EL1
frames.  Even if we can treat them the same the naming ought to be
clear.

quoted

Are you referring to ARMv8.1 VHE extension where the kernel can run
at EL2? Could you elaborate? I thought that EL2 was basically for
Hypervisors.

KVM is the main case, yes - IIRC otherwise it's mainly error handlers
but I might be missing something.  We do recommend that the kernel is
started at EL2 where possible.

Actually now I look again it's just not adding anything on EL2 entries
at all, they use a separate set of macros which aren't updated - this
will only update things for EL0 and EL1 entries so my comment above
about this tracking EL2 as EL1 isn't accurate.

OK.

Madhavan

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel