Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:22:29 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: boot flooded with unwind: Index not found
Message-ID: <Yh9TdbWwHX/5Bhmt@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <Yh5AlfprVAZvJDJA@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CAMj1kXGRTM99F_Q29Q4G2Q4L6WSHn2YY+_QZCXQGmw=yWPe1mQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXEy6n3zZ8Z51kP=tTuOU0xCXLLfC-b6BMpdsjMoM7zGBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yh8tWdiWPgZLyQtx@Red>
 <CAMj1kXGRtdftpoqmd7HBonBBS67jO=YWzoESPAagGfQBZUDQWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yh8w7ldudhmbYv4N@Red>
 <CAMj1kXHri2_tnYhu2gE9xTUOxLY9v1=zODCo1BGfjFTKukiedA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yh9CbcrfDvN2Z9Y9@Red>
 <Yh9RI64fThQfnJgS@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CAMj1kXGVwXzAAyDeJqAi+eK1hOB3uShiBb_LORL-_YNvikbsAw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGVwXzAAyDeJqAi+eK1hOB3uShiBb_LORL-_YNvikbsAw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 12:19:40PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 12:12, Russell King (Oracle)
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:09:49AM +0100, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> > > The crash disappeared (but the suspicious RCU usage is still here).
> >
> > As the trace on those is:
> >
> > [    0.239629]  unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x10/0x14
> > [    0.239654]  show_stack from init_stack+0x1c54/0x2000
> >
> > unwind_backtrace() and show_stack() are both C code, the compiler will
> > emit the unwind information for it. show_stack() isn't called from
> > assembly code, only from C code, so the next function's unwind
> > information should also be generated by the compiler.
> >
> > However, init_stack is not a function - it's an array of unsigned long.
> > There is no way this should appear in the trace, and this suggests that
> > the unwind of show_stack() has gone wrong.
> >
> > I don't see anything obvious in Ard's changes that would cause that
> > though.
> >
> > Did it used to work fine with previous versions of linux-next - those
> > versions where we had Ard's "arm-vmap-stacks-v6" tag merged in
> > (commit 2fa394824493) and did this only appear when I merged
> > "arm-ftrace-for-rmk" (commit 74aaaa1e9bba) ? Did merging
> > "arm-ftrace-for-rmk" cause any change in your .config?
> >
> 
> I can reproduce the RCU warnings, and I have tracked this down to the
> change I made to return_address() for the graph tracer, which I
> thought was justified after removing the call to
> kernel_text_address():
> 
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/ftrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/ftrace.h
> @@ -35,26 +35,8 @@ static inline unsigned long
> ftrace_call_adjust(unsigned long addr)
> 
>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> 
> -#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND)
> -/*
> - * return_address uses walk_stackframe to do it's work.  If both
> - * CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y and CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y walk_stackframe uses unwind
> - * information.  For this to work in the function tracer many functions would
> - * have to be marked with __notrace.  So for now just depend on
> - * !CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND.
> - */
> -
>  void *return_address(unsigned int);
> 
> -#else
> -
> -static inline void *return_address(unsigned int level)
> -{
> -       return NULL;
> -}
> -
> -#endif
> -
>  #define ftrace_return_address(n) return_address(n)
> 
>  #define ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_MATCH_SYM_NAME
> 
> However, the function graph tracer works happily with this bit
> reverted, and so that is probably the best course of action here.
> 
> I have already sent the patch that reintroduces the
> kernel_text_address() check - would you prefer a v2 of that one with
> this change incorporated? Or a second patch that just reverts the
> above? (Given that the bogus dereference was invoked from
> return_address() as well, I suspect that this change would make the
> get_kernel_nofault() change I proposed in this thread redundant)

I'd prefer patches on top of my devel-stable branch, thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!