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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181015003726.29103-1-nick.desaulniers@gmail.com>
 <CALCETrUZoBtxoR9u=72CSmNa-793EZySMd7TjH_BmHcrNSvLZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181015051705.GA20687@flashbox> <2CCAF5D3-1B11-43BF-93E4-72C2603A184F@amacapital.net>
 <20181015152221.GA16375@flashbox> <20181015153144.buuow3yof2njjzjm@treble> <CALCETrWtgjxSZOg=hqGe3hDDvpuBDZtjptHFDAuHYOaxs1CO_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWtgjxSZOg=hqGe3hDDvpuBDZtjptHFDAuHYOaxs1CO_w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:57:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH7mPvhgVgt+N=5pi-tGNWbitzcteSp5JOvNuMYoKFgxyrqRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: annotate no_context with UNWIND_HINTS
To:     luto@amacapital.net
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>, luto@kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, bp@alien8.de,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 9:03 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote=
:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:31 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrot=
e:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:22:21AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > >>> @@ -760,9 +760,11 @@ no_context(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned =
long error_code,
> > > > >>>                 * and then double-fault, though, because we're =
likely to
> > > > >>>                 * break the console driver and lose most of the=
 stack dump.
> > > > >>>                 */
> > > > >>> -               asm volatile ("movq %[stack], %%rsp\n\t"
> > > > >>> +               asm volatile (UNWIND_HINT_SAVE
> > > > >>> +                             "movq %[stack], %%rsp\n\t"
> > > > >>>                              "call handle_stack_overflow\n\t"
> > > > >>> -                             "1: jmp 1b"
> > > > >>> +                             "1: jmp 1b\n\t"
> > > > >>> +                             UNWIND_HINT_RESTORE
> > > > >>>                              : ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT
> > > > >>>                              : "D" ("kernel stack overflow (pag=
e fault)"),
> > > > >>>                                "S" (regs), "d" (address),
> > > > >>
> > > > >> NAK.  Just below this snippet is unreachable();
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you reply with objtool -dr output on a problematic fault.o? =
 Josh,
> > > > >> it *looks* like annotate_unreachable() should be doing the right
> > > > >> thing, but something is clearly busted.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also, shouldn't compiler-clang.h contain a reasonable definition=
 of
> > > > >> unreachable()?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Andy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you mean 'objdump -dr'? If so, here you go (rather long, sorr=
y if I
> > > > > should have pasted it here instead):
> > > > > https://gist.github.com/nathanchance/f038bb0a6653b975bb8a4e64fcd5=
503e
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, -dr wasn=E2=80=99t quite enough to dump the .discard bits, ass=
uming they=E2=80=99re there at all. Can you just put the whole .o file some=
where?
> > >
> > > Here you go: https://nathanchance.me/downloads/.tmp/fault.o
> >
> > $ eu-readelf -S /tmp/fault.o  |grep reachable
> > [12] .discard.reachable   PROGBITS     0000000000000000 00002bc0 000000=
14  0        0   0  1
> > [13] .rela.discard.reachable RELA         0000000000000000 00002bd8 000=
00078 24 I     32  12  8
> >
> > That confirms that you need a clang version of the unreachable() macro.
> >
>
> Duh.
>
> That being said, the generic macro is:
>
> # define unreachable() do { annotate_reachable(); do { } while (1); } whi=
le (0)
>
> I'm probably missing some subtlety here, but shouldn't that be
> annotate_*un*reachable()?
>
> Of course, there are any number of reasons why there should be a real
> definition.  Nathan and Nick, does adding something like:
>
> #define unreachable() \
>         do {                                    \
>                 annotate_unreachable();         \
>                 __builtin_unreachable();        \
>         } while (0)
>
> to compiler-clang.h fix the problem?

I broke this myself in commit 815f0ddb346c
("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive").
Thanks for the suggestion, will verify then send a patch with your
suggested by tag.  Thanks everyone for helping us sort this out!