* Re: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: Stop unwinding when the PC is zero
@ 2021-04-29 10:48 ` Mark Rutland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-04-29 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leo Yan
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Miroslav Benes,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Masami Hiramatsu,
Madhavan T. Venkataraman
Hi Leo,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 09:43:21AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> When use ftrace for stack trace, it reports the spurious frame with the
> PC value is zero. This can be reproduced with commands:
>
> # cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
> # echo "prev_pid == 0" > events/sched/sched_switch/filter
> # echo stacktrace > events/sched/sched_switch/trigger
> # echo 1 > events/sched/sched_switch/enable
> # cat trace
>
> <idle>-0 [005] d..2 259.621390: sched_switch: ...
> <idle>-0 [005] d..3 259.621394: <stack trace>
> => __schedule
> => schedule_idle
> => do_idle
> => cpu_startup_entry
> => secondary_start_kernel
> => 0
IIUC, this is my fault, and is an unintended side-effect of commit:
6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
... since before prior to that, we'd implicitly create a terminal record
in start_kernel and secondary_start_kernel by virtue of entering those
functions with both FP and LR set to NULL. After that commit, we report
the NULL LR before trying to unwind the NULL FP.
> The kernel initializes FP/PC values as zero for swapper threads in
> head.S, when walk the stack frame, this patch stops unwinding if detect
> the PC value is zero, therefore can avoid the spurious frame.
>
> Below is the stacktrace after applying the change:
>
> # cat trace
>
> <idle>-0 [005] d..2 259.621390: sched_switch: ...
> <idle>-0 [005] d..3 259.621394: <stack trace>
> => __schedule
> => schedule_idle
> => do_idle
> => cpu_startup_entry
> => secondary_start_kernel
>
> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 84b676bcf867..02b1e85b2026 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -145,7 +145,11 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame,
> if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
> break;
> ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
> - if (ret < 0)
> + /*
> + * When the frame->pc is zero, it has reached to the initial pc
> + * and fp values; stop unwinding for this case.
> + */
> + if (ret < 0 || !frame->pc)
> break;
I don't think this is the right place for this, since we intend
unwind_frame() to detect when unwinding is finished; see commit:
3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
I think we have three options for what to do here:
a) Revert 6106e1112cc69a36, and identify these cases as terminal records
where FP and LR are both NULL.
b) Have __primary_switched and __secondary_switched call start_kernel
and secondary_start_kernel with BL rather than B. The __*_switched
functions will show up in the trace, but we won't unwind any further
as the next record will have a NULL FP.
c) Revert 6106e1112cc69a36, create terminal records in
__primary_switched and __secondary_switched, and call start_kernel
and secondary_start_kernel with BL rather than B. The __*_switched
functions will show up in the trace, but we won't unwind any further
as the next record will be a terminal record.
For RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, we're going to have to do (c), I think, but for
now we could do (a) so as to have a minimal fix, and we can build (c)
atop that.
How about the patch below? I've tested it with your instructions and
also by inspecting /proc/self/stack.
Thanks,
Mark.
---->8----
From b99e647b34b74059f3013c09f12fbd542c7679fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:20:04 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: restore terminal records
We removed the terminal frame records in commit:
6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
... on the assumption that as we no longer used them to find the pt_regs
at exception boundaries, they were no longer necessary.
However, Leo reports that as an unintended side-effect, this causes
traces which cross secondary_start_kernel to terminate one entry too
late, with a spurious "0" entry.
There are a few ways we could sovle this, but as we're planning to use
terminal records for RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, let's revert the logic change
for now, keeping the update comments and accounting for the changes in
commit:
3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
This is effectively a partial revert of commit:
6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Fixes: 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
Reported-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 6 +++---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 10 ++++++----
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index 6acfc5e6b5e0..9b205744a233 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
@@ -263,16 +263,16 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
stp lr, x21, [sp, #S_LR]
/*
- * For exceptions from EL0, terminate the callchain here.
+ * For exceptions from EL0, create a terminal frame record.
* For exceptions from EL1, create a synthetic frame record so the
* interrupted code shows up in the backtrace.
*/
.if \el == 0
- mov x29, xzr
+ stp xzr, xzr, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
.else
stp x29, x22, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
- add x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
.endif
+ add x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index d55bdfb7789c..7032a5f9e624 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -44,10 +44,6 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
struct stack_info info;
- /* Terminal record; nothing to unwind */
- if (!fp)
- return -ENOENT;
-
if (fp & 0xf)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -108,6 +104,12 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
+ /*
+ * This is a terminal record, so we have finished unwinding.
+ */
+ if (!frame->fp && !frame->pc)
+ return -ENOENT;
+
return 0;
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
--
2.11.0
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: Stop unwinding when the PC is zero
2021-04-29 10:48 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2021-04-29 12:26 ` Leo Yan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Leo Yan @ 2021-04-29 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Miroslav Benes,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Masami Hiramatsu,
Madhavan T. Venkataraman
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:48:13AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > @@ -145,7 +145,11 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame,
> > if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
> > break;
> > ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > + /*
> > + * When the frame->pc is zero, it has reached to the initial pc
> > + * and fp values; stop unwinding for this case.
> > + */
> > + if (ret < 0 || !frame->pc)
> > break;
>
> I don't think this is the right place for this, since we intend
> unwind_frame() to detect when unwinding is finished; see commit:
>
> 3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
>
> I think we have three options for what to do here:
>
> a) Revert 6106e1112cc69a36, and identify these cases as terminal records
> where FP and LR are both NULL.
>
> b) Have __primary_switched and __secondary_switched call start_kernel
> and secondary_start_kernel with BL rather than B. The __*_switched
> functions will show up in the trace, but we won't unwind any further
> as the next record will have a NULL FP.
>
> c) Revert 6106e1112cc69a36, create terminal records in
> __primary_switched and __secondary_switched, and call start_kernel
> and secondary_start_kernel with BL rather than B. The __*_switched
> functions will show up in the trace, but we won't unwind any further
> as the next record will be a terminal record.
>
> For RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, we're going to have to do (c), I think, but for
> now we could do (a) so as to have a minimal fix, and we can build (c)
> atop that.
>
> How about the patch below? I've tested it with your instructions and
> also by inspecting /proc/self/stack.
Thanks a lot for the quick fixing, and appreciate for sharing the
background knowledge!
> ---->8----
> From b99e647b34b74059f3013c09f12fbd542c7679fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:20:04 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: restore terminal records
>
> We removed the terminal frame records in commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> ... on the assumption that as we no longer used them to find the pt_regs
> at exception boundaries, they were no longer necessary.
>
> However, Leo reports that as an unintended side-effect, this causes
> traces which cross secondary_start_kernel to terminate one entry too
> late, with a spurious "0" entry.
>
> There are a few ways we could sovle this, but as we're planning to use
> terminal records for RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, let's revert the logic change
> for now, keeping the update comments and accounting for the changes in
> commit:
>
> 3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
>
> This is effectively a partial revert of commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Fixes: 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
> Reported-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
For this patch, I tested at my side and it works as expected. Though I
don't have complete knowledge for reviewing this patch, I went through
the history commits your mentioned and connected with this patch, it
looks good to me:
Tested-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 6 +++---
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 10 ++++++----
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index 6acfc5e6b5e0..9b205744a233 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -263,16 +263,16 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
> stp lr, x21, [sp, #S_LR]
>
> /*
> - * For exceptions from EL0, terminate the callchain here.
> + * For exceptions from EL0, create a terminal frame record.
> * For exceptions from EL1, create a synthetic frame record so the
> * interrupted code shows up in the backtrace.
> */
> .if \el == 0
> - mov x29, xzr
> + stp xzr, xzr, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
> .else
> stp x29, x22, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
> - add x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
> .endif
> + add x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
> alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index d55bdfb7789c..7032a5f9e624 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -44,10 +44,6 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
> unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
> struct stack_info info;
>
> - /* Terminal record; nothing to unwind */
> - if (!fp)
> - return -ENOENT;
> -
> if (fp & 0xf)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -108,6 +104,12 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>
> frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
>
> + /*
> + * This is a terminal record, so we have finished unwinding.
> + */
> + if (!frame->fp && !frame->pc)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> return 0;
> }
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
> --
> 2.11.0
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: Stop unwinding when the PC is zero
@ 2021-04-29 12:26 ` Leo Yan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Leo Yan @ 2021-04-29 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Miroslav Benes,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Masami Hiramatsu,
Madhavan T. Venkataraman
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:48:13AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > @@ -145,7 +145,11 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame,
> > if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
> > break;
> > ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > + /*
> > + * When the frame->pc is zero, it has reached to the initial pc
> > + * and fp values; stop unwinding for this case.
> > + */
> > + if (ret < 0 || !frame->pc)
> > break;
>
> I don't think this is the right place for this, since we intend
> unwind_frame() to detect when unwinding is finished; see commit:
>
> 3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
>
> I think we have three options for what to do here:
>
> a) Revert 6106e1112cc69a36, and identify these cases as terminal records
> where FP and LR are both NULL.
>
> b) Have __primary_switched and __secondary_switched call start_kernel
> and secondary_start_kernel with BL rather than B. The __*_switched
> functions will show up in the trace, but we won't unwind any further
> as the next record will have a NULL FP.
>
> c) Revert 6106e1112cc69a36, create terminal records in
> __primary_switched and __secondary_switched, and call start_kernel
> and secondary_start_kernel with BL rather than B. The __*_switched
> functions will show up in the trace, but we won't unwind any further
> as the next record will be a terminal record.
>
> For RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, we're going to have to do (c), I think, but for
> now we could do (a) so as to have a minimal fix, and we can build (c)
> atop that.
>
> How about the patch below? I've tested it with your instructions and
> also by inspecting /proc/self/stack.
Thanks a lot for the quick fixing, and appreciate for sharing the
background knowledge!
> ---->8----
> From b99e647b34b74059f3013c09f12fbd542c7679fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:20:04 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: restore terminal records
>
> We removed the terminal frame records in commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> ... on the assumption that as we no longer used them to find the pt_regs
> at exception boundaries, they were no longer necessary.
>
> However, Leo reports that as an unintended side-effect, this causes
> traces which cross secondary_start_kernel to terminate one entry too
> late, with a spurious "0" entry.
>
> There are a few ways we could sovle this, but as we're planning to use
> terminal records for RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, let's revert the logic change
> for now, keeping the update comments and accounting for the changes in
> commit:
>
> 3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
>
> This is effectively a partial revert of commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Fixes: 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
> Reported-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
For this patch, I tested at my side and it works as expected. Though I
don't have complete knowledge for reviewing this patch, I went through
the history commits your mentioned and connected with this patch, it
looks good to me:
Tested-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 6 +++---
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 10 ++++++----
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index 6acfc5e6b5e0..9b205744a233 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -263,16 +263,16 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
> stp lr, x21, [sp, #S_LR]
>
> /*
> - * For exceptions from EL0, terminate the callchain here.
> + * For exceptions from EL0, create a terminal frame record.
> * For exceptions from EL1, create a synthetic frame record so the
> * interrupted code shows up in the backtrace.
> */
> .if \el == 0
> - mov x29, xzr
> + stp xzr, xzr, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
> .else
> stp x29, x22, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
> - add x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
> .endif
> + add x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
> alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_PAN
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index d55bdfb7789c..7032a5f9e624 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -44,10 +44,6 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
> unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
> struct stack_info info;
>
> - /* Terminal record; nothing to unwind */
> - if (!fp)
> - return -ENOENT;
> -
> if (fp & 0xf)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -108,6 +104,12 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>
> frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
>
> + /*
> + * This is a terminal record, so we have finished unwinding.
> + */
> + if (!frame->fp && !frame->pc)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> return 0;
> }
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
> --
> 2.11.0
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: Stop unwinding when the PC is zero
2021-04-29 10:48 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2021-04-30 17:32 ` Catalin Marinas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2021-04-30 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Leo Yan, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Miroslav Benes,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Masami Hiramatsu,
Madhavan T. Venkataraman
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:48:13AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> From b99e647b34b74059f3013c09f12fbd542c7679fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:20:04 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: restore terminal records
>
> We removed the terminal frame records in commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> ... on the assumption that as we no longer used them to find the pt_regs
> at exception boundaries, they were no longer necessary.
>
> However, Leo reports that as an unintended side-effect, this causes
> traces which cross secondary_start_kernel to terminate one entry too
> late, with a spurious "0" entry.
>
> There are a few ways we could sovle this, but as we're planning to use
> terminal records for RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, let's revert the logic change
> for now, keeping the update comments and accounting for the changes in
> commit:
>
> 3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
>
> This is effectively a partial revert of commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Fixes: 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
> Reported-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Thanks Mark. I applied it to for-next/core (couldn't figure out the
combination of b4 and git am + the scissors and not replying to the top
message).
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: Stop unwinding when the PC is zero
@ 2021-04-30 17:32 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2021-04-30 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Leo Yan, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Miroslav Benes,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Masami Hiramatsu,
Madhavan T. Venkataraman
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:48:13AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> From b99e647b34b74059f3013c09f12fbd542c7679fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:20:04 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: stacktrace: restore terminal records
>
> We removed the terminal frame records in commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> ... on the assumption that as we no longer used them to find the pt_regs
> at exception boundaries, they were no longer necessary.
>
> However, Leo reports that as an unintended side-effect, this causes
> traces which cross secondary_start_kernel to terminate one entry too
> late, with a spurious "0" entry.
>
> There are a few ways we could sovle this, but as we're planning to use
> terminal records for RELIABLE_STACKTRACE, let's revert the logic change
> for now, keeping the update comments and accounting for the changes in
> commit:
>
> 3c02600144bdb0a1 ("arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack")
>
> This is effectively a partial revert of commit:
>
> 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Fixes: 6106e1112cc69a36 ("arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record")
> Reported-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Thanks Mark. I applied it to for-next/core (couldn't figure out the
combination of b4 and git am + the scissors and not replying to the top
message).
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread