Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: Rewrite switch_to() code

[Brian Gerst]

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:59:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> cc: Josh Poimboeuf: do you care about the exact stack layout of the
>> >> bottom of the stack of an inactive task?
>> >
>> > So there's one minor issue with this patch, relating to unwinding the
>> > stack of a newly forked task.  For detecting reliable stacks, the
>> > unwinder needs to unwind all the way to the syscall pt_regs to make sure
>> > the stack is sane.  But for newly forked tasks, that won't be possible
>> > here because the unwinding will stop at the fork_frame instead.
>> >
>> > So from an unwinder standpoint it might be nice for copy_thread_tls() to
>> > place a frame pointer on the stack next to the ret_from_fork return
>> > address, so that it would resemble an actual stack frame.  The frame
>> > pointer could probably just be hard-coded to zero.  And then the first
>> > bp in fork_frame would need to be a pointer to it instead of zero.  That
>> > would make it nicely resemble the stack of any other task.
>> >
>> > Alternatively I could teach the unwinder that if the unwinding starts at
>> > the fork_frame offset from the end of the stack page, and the saved rbp
>> > is zero, it can assume that it's a newly forked task.  But that seems a
>> > little more brittle to me, as it requires the unwinder to understand
>> > more of the internal workings of the fork code.
>> >
>> > But overall I think this patch is a really nice cleanup, and other than
>> > the above minor issue it should be fine with my reliable unwinder, since
>> > rbp is still at the top of the stack.
>>
>> Is this a regression or is there some reason that it works right
>> without the patch?
>
> Without the patch, it uses TIF_FORK to determine the stack is empty.

Where is this code?  I don't see it in the mainline kernel.

--
Brian Gerst