Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2728 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:59:27AM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 11/25/21 8:56 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:22PM -0600, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

> > Probably also worth noting that this doesn't select
> > HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE which is what any actual users are going to use
> > to identify if the architecture has the feature.  I would have been
> > tempted to add arch_stack_walk() as a separate patch but equally having
> > the user code there (even if it itself can't yet be used...) helps with
> > reviewing the actual unwinder so I don't mind.

> I did not select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE just in case we think that some
> more reliability checks need to be added. But if reviewers agree
> that this patch series contains all the reliability checks we need, I
> will add a patch to select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE to the series.

I agree that more checks probably need to be added, might be worth
throwing that patch into the end of the series though to provide a place
to discuss what exactly we need.  My main thought here was that it's
worth explicitly highlighting in this change that the Kconfig bit isn't
glued up here so reviewers notice that's what's happening.

> >> +static void unwind_check_reliability(struct task_struct *task,
> >> +				     struct stackframe *frame)
> >> +{
> >> +	if (frame->fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe) {
> >> +		/* Final frame; no more unwind, no need to check reliability */
> >> +		return;
> >> +	}

> > If the unwinder carries on for some reason (the code for that is
> > elsewhere and may be updated separately...) then this will start
> > checking again.  I'm not sure if this is a *problem* as such but the
> > thing about this being the final frame coupled with not actually
> > explicitly stopping the unwind here makes me think this should at least
> > be clearer, the comment begs the question about what happens if
> > something decides it is not in fact the final frame.

> I can address this by adding an explicit comment to that effect.
> For example, define a separate function to check for the final frame:

> /*
>  * Check if this is the final frame. Unwind must stop at the final
>  * frame.
>  */
> static inline bool unwind_is_final_frame(struct task_struct *task,
>                                          struct stackframe *frame)
> {
> 	return frame->fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(task)->stackframe;
> }

> Then, use this function in unwind_check_reliability() and unwind_continue().

> Is this acceptable?

Yes, I think that should address the issue - I'd have to see it in
context to be sure but it does make it clear that the same check is
being done which was the main thing.

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