Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-05-04 15:51:37
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:36:12PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
+ /*
+ * First, make sure that the return address is a proper kernel text
+ * address. A NULL or invalid return address probably means there's
+ * some generated code which __kernel_text_address() doesn't know
+ * about. Mark the stack trace as not reliable.
+ */
+ if (!__kernel_text_address(frame->pc)) {
+ frame->reliable = false;
+ return 0;
+ }Do we want the return here? It means that...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER if (tsk->ret_stack && - (ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc) == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)) { + frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler) { struct ftrace_ret_stack *ret_stack; /* * This is a case where function graph tracer has@@ -103,11 +117,10 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame) if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ret_stack)) return -EINVAL; frame->pc = ret_stack->ret; + frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc); }
...we skip this handling in the case where we're not in kernel code. I don't know off hand if that's a case that can happen right now but it seems more robust to run through this and anything else we add later, even if it's not relevant now changes either in the unwinder itself or resulting from some future work elsewhere may mean it later becomes important. Skipping futher reliability checks is obviously fine if we've already decided things aren't reliable but this is more than just a reliability check.
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 488 bytes