Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86/dumpstack: Try harder to get a call trace on stack overflow

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:28:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> If we overflow the stack, print_context_stack will abort.  Detect
>> this case and rewind back into the valid part of the stack so that
>> we can trace it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> index d4d085e27d04..400a2e17c1d1 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
>>  {
>>       struct stack_frame *frame = (struct stack_frame *)bp;
>>
>> +     /*
>> +      * If we overflowed the stack into a guard page, jump back to the
>> +      * bottom of the usable stack.
>> +      */
>> +     if ((unsigned long)tinfo - (unsigned long)stack < PAGE_SIZE)
>> +             stack = (unsigned long *)tinfo + 1;
>
> That will start walking the stack in the middle of the thread_info
> struct.
>
> I think you meant:
>
>                 stack = (unsigned long *)(tinfo + 1)
>
> However, thread_info will have been overwritten anyway.  So maybe it
> should just be:
>
>                 stack = tinfo;
>
> (Though that still wouldn't quite work because the valid_stack_ptr()
> check would fail...)

I did mean what I wrote, because I wanted to start at the bottom of
the validly allocated area.  IOW I wanted to do the minimum possible
backward jump to make the code display something.

Eventually I want to make thread_info empty, in which case the
distinction won't matter so much.

--Andy