Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:57:34 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Pratyush Anand <pratyush.anand@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for
 function graph tracing
Message-ID: <20180116175734.4rp4bewr7us4jypk@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180112104832.9417-1-jmarchan@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180112104832.9417-1-jmarchan@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:48:32AM +0100, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 76809ccd309c..5a528c58ef68 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -59,6 +59,10 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>  	if (tsk->ret_stack &&
>  			(frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)) {
> +		WARN_ON(frame->graph == -1);
> +		if (frame->graph < -1)
> +			frame->graph += FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH;
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * This is a case where function graph tracer has
>  		 * modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame

So do we still allow this to continue if graph == -1? The following line
doesn't seem safe:

		frame->pc = tsk->ret_stack[frame->graph--].ret;

-- 
Catalin