lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: avoid race condition issue in dump_backtrace
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 04:08:12PM +0800, Ji.Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 11:12 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:33:32PM +0800, Ji.Zhang wrote:
> >
> > I'm very much not keen on this.
> >
> > I think that if we're going to do this, the only sane way to do it is to
> > have unwind_frame() verify the current fp against the previous one, and
> > verify that we have some strict nesting of stacks. Generally, that means
> > we can go:
> >
> > overflow -> irq -> task
> >
> > ... though I'm not sure what to do about the SDEI stack vs the overflow
> > stack.
> Actually I have had the fp check in unwind_frame(), but since I use the
> in_entry_text() to determine if stack spans, and I did not want to
> include traps.h in stacktrace.c, so I move the check out to
> dump_backtrace.
> Anyway, It seems that the key point is how should we verify that there
> are some nesting of stacks. Since in unwind_frame() we already have the
> previous fp and current fp, could we assume that if these two fps are
> NOT belong to the same stack, there should be stack spans (no matter
> task->irq, or irq->overflow, etc), and we can do the tricky to bypass
> the fp check.The sample of the prosal just like:

Unfortuantely, this still allows for loops, like task -> irq -> task, so
I think if we're going to try to fix this, we must define a nesting
order and check against that.

Thanks,
Mark.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> index 902f9ed..fc2bf4d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> @@ -92,4 +92,18 @@ static inline bool on_accessible_stack(struct
> task_struct *tsk, unsigned long sp
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline bool on_same_stack(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long
> sp1, unsigned sp2)
> +{
> + if (on_task_stack(tsk, sp1) && on_task_stack(tsk, sp2))
> + return true;
> + if (on_irq_stack(sp1) && on_irq_stack(sp2))
> + return true;
> + if (on_overflow_stack(sp1) && on_overflow_stack(sp2))
> + return true;
> + if (on_sdei_stack(sp1) && on_sdei_stack(sp2))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> #endif /* __ASM_STACKTRACE_H */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index d5718a0..4907a67 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,13 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
> struct stackframe *frame)
> frame->fp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
> frame->pc = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
>
> + if (!on_same_stack(fp, frame->fp))
> + fp = frame->fp + 0x8;
> + if (fp <= frame->fp) {
> + pr_notice("fp invalid, stop unwind\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> if (tsk->ret_stack &&
> (frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler))
> {
>
> Could this work?
>
> Best Regards,
> Ji
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-04 11:06    [W:0.073 / U:2.848 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site