On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> 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 <l...@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> 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
