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 \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v10 08/11] arm64: Rename unwinder functions, prevent them from being traced and kprobed' \ /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
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).