Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:04:27 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Holger =?utf-8?Q?Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= 
        <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>,
        Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Justin Forbes <jmforbes@linuxtx.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, patches@kernelci.org,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/923] 5.15.3-rc3 review
Message-ID: <20211119020427.2y5esq2czquwmvwc@treble>
References: <20211117101657.463560063@linuxfoundation.org>
 <YZV02RCRVHIa144u@fedora64.linuxtx.org>
 <55c7b316-e03d-9e91-d74c-fea63c469b3b@applied-asynchrony.com>
 <CAHk-=wjHbKfck1Ws4Y0pUZ7bxdjU9eh2WK0EFsv65utfeVkT9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211118080627.GH174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20211118081852.GM174730@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YZYfYOcqNqOyZ8Yo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YZZC3Shc0XA/gHK9@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YZZC3Shc0XA/gHK9@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:18:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:06:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:50:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I really don't think the WCHAN code should use unwinders at all. It's
> > > > > too damn fragile, and it's too easily triggered from user space.
> > > > 
> > > > On x86, esp. with ORC, it pretty much has to. The thing is, the ORC
> > > > unwinder has been very stable so far. I'm guessing there's some really
> > > > stupid thing going on, like for example trying to unwind a freed stack.
> > > > 
> > > > I *just* managed to reproduce, so let me go have a poke.
> > > 
> > > Confirmed, with the below it no longer reproduces. Now, let me go undo
> > > that and fix the unwinder to not explode while trying to unwind nothing.
> > 
> > OK, so the bug is firmly with 5d1ceb3969b6 ("x86: Fix __get_wchan() for
> > !STACKTRACE") which lost the try_get_task_stack() that stack_trace_*()
> > does.
> > 
> > We can ofc trivially re-instate that, but I'm now running with the
> > below which I suppose is a better fix, hmm?
> > 
> > (obv I still need to look a the other two unwinders)
> 
> I now have the below, the only thing missing is that there's a
> user_mode() call on a stack based regs. Now on x86_64 we can
> __get_kernel_nofault() regs->cs and call it a day, but on i386 we have
> to also fetch regs->flags.
> 
> Is this really the way to go?

Please no.  Can we just add a check in unwind_start() to ensure the
caller did try_get_task_stack()?

-- 
Josh