From: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
To: mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: [PATCH v10 08/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and kprobed
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:58:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211015025847.17694-9-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211015025847.17694-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Rename unwinder functions for consistency and better naming.
- Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_start().
- Rename unwind_frame() to unwind_next().
- Rename walk_stackframe() to unwind().
Prevent the following unwinder functions from being traced:
- unwind_start()
- unwind_next()
unwind() is already prevented from being traced.
Prevent the following unwinder functions from being kprobed:
- unwind_start()
unwind_next() and unwind() are already prevented from being kprobed.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 7d32cee9ef4b..f4f3575f71fd 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
*/
-static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
- unsigned long pc)
+static void notrace unwind_start(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
+ unsigned long pc)
{
frame->fp = fp;
frame->pc = pc;
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
/*
* Prime the first unwind.
*
- * In unwind_frame() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
+ * In unwind_next() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
* which can't be STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN, and the first unwind will be
* treated as a transition to whichever stack that happens to be. The
* prev_fp value won't be used, but we set it to 0 such that it is
@@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
frame->prev_type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
}
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_start);
+
/*
* Unwind from one frame record (A) to the next frame record (B).
*
@@ -63,8 +65,8 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
* records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
* and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
*/
-static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
- struct stackframe *frame)
+static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
+ struct stackframe *frame)
{
unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
struct stack_info info;
@@ -104,7 +106,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
/*
* Record this frame record's values and location. The prev_fp and
- * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_frame() invocation.
+ * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_next() invocation.
*/
frame->fp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
frame->pc = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
@@ -132,28 +134,30 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
return 0;
}
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
-static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
- unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
- bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long),
- void *data)
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
+
+static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
+ unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
+ bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long),
+ void *data)
{
struct stackframe frame;
- start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
+ unwind_start(&frame, fp, pc);
while (1) {
int ret;
if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
break;
- ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
+ ret = unwind_next(tsk, &frame);
if (ret < 0)
break;
}
}
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(walk_stackframe);
+
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
static bool dump_backtrace_entry(void *arg, unsigned long where)
{
@@ -208,7 +212,7 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
}
- walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
+ unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
}
--
2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-15 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <c05ce30dcc9be1bd6b5e24a2ca8fe1d66246980b>
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 01/11] arm64: Select STACKTRACE in arch/arm64/Kconfig madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 10/11] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 11/11] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 02/11] arm64: Make perf_callchain_kernel() use arch_stack_walk() madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 03/11] arm64: Make get_wchan() " madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 04/11] arm64: Make return_address() " madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 05/11] arm64: Make dump_stacktrace() " madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 06/11] arm64: Make profile_pc() " madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 07/11] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe() madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 08/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and kprobed madvenka
2021-10-15 2:34 ` [PATCH v9 09/11] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2021-10-15 2:53 ` [PATCH v9 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 " madvenka
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 01/11] arm64: Select STACKTRACE in arch/arm64/Kconfig madvenka
2021-10-15 18:28 ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:28 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-22 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-12 17:44 ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-14 16:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 02/11] arm64: Make perf_callchain_kernel() use arch_stack_walk() madvenka
2021-10-20 14:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:28 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-22 18:11 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-23 12:49 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 03/11] arm64: Make get_wchan() " madvenka
2021-10-20 16:10 ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:30 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 04/11] arm64: Make return_address() " madvenka
2021-10-20 15:03 ` Mark Brown
2021-10-21 12:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-22 18:51 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-23 12:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 05/11] arm64: Make dump_stacktrace() " madvenka
2021-10-25 16:49 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-26 12:05 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 16:09 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 06/11] arm64: Make profile_pc() " madvenka
2021-10-25 2:18 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-10-27 16:10 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-27 13:32 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 16:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 07/11] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe() madvenka
2021-10-15 2:58 ` madvenka [this message]
2021-10-27 17:53 ` [PATCH v10 08/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and kprobed Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 20:07 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 09/11] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 10/11] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-11-04 12:39 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-11-10 3:13 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-15 2:58 ` [PATCH v10 11/11] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-10-15 17:00 ` [PATCH v10 00/11] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
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=20211015025847.17694-9-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.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=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
--cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).