Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1594396
| From | Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces |
| Date | 2017-03-07 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tiq09-1A2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <taApH-3o3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <taApJ-3o3-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <tij8m-4ZD-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:50:55PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 19:42 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > For live patching and possibly other use cases, a stack trace is only > > useful if it can be assured that it's completely reliable. Add a new > > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() function to achieve that. > > > > Note that if the target task isn't the current task, and the target task > > is allowed to run, then it could be writing the stack while the unwinder > > is reading it, resulting in possible corruption. So the caller of > > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() must ensure that the task is either > > 'current' or inactive. > > > > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() relies on the x86 unwinder's detection > > of pt_regs on the stack. If the pt_regs are not user-mode registers > > from a syscall, then they indicate an in-kernel interrupt or exception > > (e.g. preemption or a page fault), in which case the stack is considered > > unreliable due to the nature of frame pointers. > > > > It also relies on the x86 unwinder's detection of other issues, such as: > > > > - corrupted stack data > > - stack grows the wrong way > > - stack walk doesn't reach the bottom > > - user didn't provide a large enough entries array > > > > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done(). > > > > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can > > determine at build time whether the function is implemented. > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> > > --- > > Could you comment on why we need a reliable trace for live-patching? Are > we in any way reliant on the stack trace to patch something broken? I tried to cover this comprehensively in patch 13/15 in Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt. Does that answer your questions? -- Josh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-07 17:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 11:30 +0100
csiph-web