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

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:37:07AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:22:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > But why the "+ 1"?  Is that a hack to make it pass the valid_stack_ptr()
> > check?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But hmm.  Maybe the right fix is to drop the + 1 and to change the
> last line of valid_stck_ptr from:
> 
>     return p > t && p < t + THREAD_SIZE - size;
> 
> to:
> 
>     return p >= t && p < t + THREAD_SIZE - size;

Yeah, I think that would be much better.  Then it won't skip the first
value on the page.

-- 
Josh