On 5/21/19 7:07 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 17:53, Alexander Potapenko <gli...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 5:43 PM Andrey Ryabinin <aryabi...@virtuozzo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/20/19 6:47 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static void print_decoded_frame_descr(const char *frame_descr)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * We need to parse the following string:
>>>> + * "n alloc_1 alloc_2 ... alloc_n"
>>>> + * where alloc_i looks like
>>>> + * "offset size len name"
>>>> + * or "offset size len name:line".
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> + char token[64];
>>>> + unsigned long num_objects;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!tokenize_frame_descr(&frame_descr, token, sizeof(token),
>>>> + &num_objects))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + pr_err("\n");
>>>> + pr_err("this frame has %lu %s:\n", num_objects,
>>>> + num_objects == 1 ? "object" : "objects");
>>>> +
>>>> + while (num_objects--) {
>>>> + unsigned long offset;
>>>> + unsigned long size;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* access offset */
>>>> + if (!tokenize_frame_descr(&frame_descr, token, sizeof(token),
>>>> + &offset))
>>>> + return;
>>>> + /* access size */
>>>> + if (!tokenize_frame_descr(&frame_descr, token, sizeof(token),
>>>> + &size))
>>>> + return;
>>>> + /* name length (unused) */
>>>> + if (!tokenize_frame_descr(&frame_descr, NULL, 0, NULL))
>>>> + return;
>>>> + /* object name */
>>>> + if (!tokenize_frame_descr(&frame_descr, token, sizeof(token),
>>>> + NULL))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Strip line number, if it exists. */
>>>
>>> Why?
>
> The filename is not included, and I don't think it adds much in terms
> of ability to debug; nor is the line number included with all
> descriptions. I think, the added complexity of separating the line
> number and parsing is not worthwhile here. Alternatively, I could not
> pay attention to the line number at all, and leave it as is -- in that
> case, some variable names will display as "foo:123".
>
Either way is fine by me. But explain why in comment if you decide
to keep current code. Something like
/* Strip line number cause it's not very helpful. */
>>>
>>>> + strreplace(token, ':', '\0');
>>>> +
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + aligned_addr = round_down((unsigned long)addr, sizeof(long));
>>>> + mem_ptr = round_down(aligned_addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE);
>>>> + shadow_ptr = kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)aligned_addr);
>>>> + shadow_bottom = kasan_mem_to_shadow(end_of_stack(current));
>>>> +
>>>> + while (shadow_ptr >= shadow_bottom && *shadow_ptr !=
>>>> KASAN_STACK_LEFT) {
>>>> + shadow_ptr--;
>>>> + mem_ptr -= KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + while (shadow_ptr >= shadow_bottom && *shadow_ptr ==
>>>> KASAN_STACK_LEFT) {
>>>> + shadow_ptr--;
>>>> + mem_ptr -= KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I suppose this won't work if stack grows up, which is fine because it grows
>>> up only on parisc arch.
>>> But "BUILD_BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STACK_GROUWSUP))" somewhere wouldn't
>>> hurt.
>> Note that KASAN was broken on parisc from day 1 because of other
>> assumptions on the stack growth direction hardcoded into KASAN
>> (e.g. __kasan_unpoison_stack() and __asan_allocas_unpoison()).
It's not broken, it doesn't exist.
>> So maybe this BUILD_BUG_ON can be added in a separate patch as it's
>> not specific to what Marco is doing here?
>
I think it's fine to add it in this patch because BUILD_BUG_ON() is just a hint
for developers
that this particular function depends on growing down stack. So it's more a
property of the function
rather than KASAN in general.
Other functions you mentioned can be marked with BUILD_BUG_ON()s as well, but
not in this patch indeed.
> Happy to send a follow-up patch, or add here. Let me know what you prefer.
>
Send v3 please.
