On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 17:02 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
> > > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ x86_backtrace(struct pt_regs * const regs, unsigned
> > > int depth)
> > >
> > > if (!user_mode_vm(regs)) {
> > > unsigned long stack = kernel_stack_pointer(regs);
> > > - if (depth)
> > > + if (depth & stack)
> >
> > Can other users of kernel_stack_pointer() be nailed by a return of NULL?
>
> It would be save here too, but dump_trace() falls back to the current
> stack in case there is no stack address given which we don't want with
> oprofile.
>
> I was looking at all users of kernel_stack_pointer() and could not
> find any direct pointer dereference of the sp. The only potential
> problems I found could arise here:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c:resume_execution()
> arch/x86/kernel/time.c:profile_pc()
>
> It is not quite clear if we really need code here that checks the
> pointer. Since a NULL pointer access has the same effect as if the
> stack address would be wrong which would be the case without the
> patch, I rather tend not to change the code here.
Then a comment should be in the oprofile code too. Something to the
effect that oprofile is special and can cause kernel_stack_pointer() to
return NULL in some cases, thus we need to check for it.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
