Do kernel threads need their own stack?

From: Brent Baccala (baccala@freesoft.org)
Date: Wed Jul 18 2001 - 02:16:27 EST

Hi -

I'm experimenting with some code to track down stack overruns in the
kernel, and I've stumbled across some stuff in the i386 kernel_thread
code that strikes me as very suspicious. This is 2.4.6.

First off, here's kernel_thread from arch/i386/kernel/process.c:

int kernel_thread(int (*fn)(void *), void * arg, unsigned long flags)
{
        long retval, d0;

        __asm__ __volatile__(
                "movl %%esp,%%esi\n\t"
                "int $0x80\n\t" /* Linux/i386 system call */
                "cmpl %%esp,%%esi\n\t" /* child or parent? */
                "je 1f\n\t" /* parent - jump */

 ... stuff omitted ...

                "1:\t"
                :"=&a" (retval), "=&S" (d0)
                :"0" (__NR_clone), "i" (__NR_exit),
                 "r" (arg), "r" (fn),
                 "b" (flags | CLONE_VM)
                : "memory");
        return retval;
}

The register constraints make sure that the "a" register (eax) is
operand 0 and contains __NR_clone to start with. The "b" register (ebx)
contains (flags | CLONE_VM). We save the stack pointer to ESI and INT
80, which (combined with the __NR_clone in eax) lands us in sys_clone
(same file):

asmlinkage int sys_clone(struct pt_regs regs)
{
        unsigned long clone_flags;
        unsigned long newsp;

        clone_flags = regs.ebx;
        newsp = regs.ecx;
        if (!newsp)
                newsp = regs.esp;
        return do_fork(clone_flags, newsp, &regs, 0);
}

The first thing I notice is that this function refers not only to the
clone flags in ebx, but also to a "newsp" in ecx - and ecx went
completely unmentioned in kernel_thread()! A disassembly of
kernel_thread shows that "arg" winds up in ecx before the system call,
so I guess this is what gets passed to do_fork(), where (I think) it
ultimately ends up being the child's stack pointer.

In the case of bdflush_init() (end of fs/buffer.c), what gets passed in
as "arg" is the address of a semaphore on the stack - the only variable
allocated by the function. That means that the child's stack pointer
starts at the bottom of the parent's stack in bdflush_init() and grows
down from there. And if the parent never goes deeper into its stack
than bdflush_init(), I guess it works - sort of.

Anyway, I'm confused. My analysis might be wrong, since I don't spend
that much time in the Linux kernel, but bottom line - doesn't
kernel_thread() need to allocate stack space for the child? I mean,
even if everything else is shared, doesn't the child at least need it's
own stack?

I need to stare at this more, but maybe somebody else can explain what's
going on here. At the very least, I think kernel_thread() needs to
explicitly specify what goes into the ECX register, because it looks to
me like it's just the luck of the compiler's draw... 

-- 
                                        -bwb

                                        Brent Baccala
                                        baccala@freesoft.org

==============================================================================
       For news from freesoft.org, subscribe to announce@freesoft.org:
   
mailto:announce-request@freesoft.org?subject=subscribe&body=subscribe
==============================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:10 EST