Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1572 bytes --]

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...

> +
>  #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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]