Re: [PATCH v2 30/44] x86/unwind: add new unwind interface and implementations

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:25:11AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2016 2:27 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:17:41PM -0500, Nilay Vaish wrote:
> > > On 4 August 2016 at 17:22, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..f28f1b5
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
> > > > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/ptrace.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/bitops.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/unwind.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#define FRAME_HEADER_SIZE (sizeof(long) * 2)
> > > > +
> > > > +unsigned long unwind_get_return_address(struct unwind_state *state)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       unsigned long *addr_p = unwind_get_return_address_ptr(state);
> > > > +       unsigned long addr;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (state->stack_info.type == STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN)
> > > > +               return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +       addr = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(state->task, &state->graph_idx, *addr_p,
> > > > +                                    addr_p);
> > > > +
> > > > +       return __kernel_text_address(addr) ? addr : 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unwind_get_return_address);
> > > > +
> > > > +static bool update_stack_state(struct unwind_state *state, void *addr,
> > > > +                              size_t len)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct stack_info *info = &state->stack_info;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (on_stack(info, addr, len))
> > > > +               return true;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (get_stack_info(info->next_sp, state->task, info,
> > > > +                          &state->stack_mask))
> > > > +               goto unknown;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!on_stack(info, addr, len))
> > > > +               goto unknown;
> > > > +
> > > > +       return true;
> > > > +
> > > > +unknown:
> > > > +       info->type = STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
> > > > +       return false;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       unsigned long *next_bp;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (unwind_done(state))
> > > > +               return false;
> > > > +
> > > > +       next_bp = (unsigned long *)*state->bp;
> > > > +
> > > > +       /*
> > > > +        * Make sure the next frame is on a valid stack and can be accessed
> > > > +        * safely.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +       if (!update_stack_state(state, next_bp, FRAME_HEADER_SIZE))
> > > > +               return false;
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* move to the next frame */
> > > > +       state->bp = next_bp;
> > > > +       return true;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unwind_next_frame);
> > > > +
> > > > +void __unwind_start(struct unwind_state *state, struct task_struct *task,
> > > > +                   struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long *sp)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
> > > > +
> > > > +       state->task = task;
> > > > +       state->bp = get_frame_pointer(task, regs);
> > > > +
> > > > +       get_stack_info(state->bp, state->task, &state->stack_info,
> > > > +                      &state->stack_mask);
> > > > +       update_stack_state(state, state->bp, FRAME_HEADER_SIZE);
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* unwind to the first frame after the specified stack pointer */
> > > > +       while (state->bp < sp && !unwind_done(state))
> > > > +               unwind_next_frame(state);
> > >
> > > Do we unwind all the frames here?  It seems strange to me that in a
> > > function named __unwind_start(), we unwind all the frames.
> >
> > It just skips any stack frames before the specified "sp" pointer.
> > Several callers use this, for example, to start at regs->sp instead of
> > the current stack frame.  I'll try to make the comment clearer.
> >
> 
> Are you checking the right condition?  Shouldn't this check that sp is
> in bounds for the current stack if a stack switch happened?

You're right.

> I admit I don't fully understand the use case.  If someone wants to
> start a trace in the middle, shouldn't they just pass regs in?

The regs aren't always available.  Some callers just want to skip the
first few frames so the stack dump code itself isn't traced.

-- 
Josh