Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:41:30 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Cc:     will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, alex.popov@linux.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        james.morse@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Clear the stack
Message-ID: <20180719104130.egfevpo3ie4azaq6@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180629190553.7282-1-labbott@redhat.com>
 <9733d929-3c6a-40e1-6110-8f79975323d3@linux.com>
 <1b97aa7d-2b6c-a5df-0caa-1cd16e18a816@redhat.com>
 <20180703121440.v4olvwqb3ykgt5fm@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <06dd55e6-d39e-7617-b644-bdd04fa3c030@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <06dd55e6-d39e-7617-b644-bdd04fa3c030@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 03:58:19PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 07/03/2018 05:14 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > It might be cleaner just to use on_accessible_stack and then another
> > > function to get the top of stack. This also might just be
> > > reimplementing what x86 already has? (Mark, Ard?)
> > It looks like we could build a get_stack_info() as they have.
> > 
> > We could probably clean up our stack traced atop of that, too.
> 
> So I spent some time looking at this and I'm not 100% clear
> if there would actually be much benefit to re-writing with
> get_stack_info. Most of that design seems to come from x86
> needing to handle multiple unwind options which arm64 doesn't
> need to worry about. Any rework ended up with roughly
> the same code without any notable benefit that I could see.
> It's possible I'm missing what kind of cleanup you're suggesting
> but I think just going with a tweaked version of on_accessible_stack
> would be fine.

I was mostly thinking that a struct stack_info with stack type
enumeration would also be helpful for ensuring that we terminated stack
traces when we had a loop.

I'll reply on your new thread.

Thanks,
Mark.