Re: BUG-lockdep and freeze (was: Arrr! Linux 2.6.18)

From: Andi Kleen
Date: Sat Sep 30 2006 - 18:03:13 EST

On Saturday 30 September 2006 23:56, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Anyways, I guess we need even more validation in the fallback code,
> > but just terminating the kernel thread stacks should fix that particular case.
> Why not just add the simple validation?
> A kernel stack is one page in size. If you move to another page, you
> terminate. It's that simple.

No, it's not. On x86-64 it can be three or more stacks nested in
complicated ways (process stack, interrupt stack, exception stack)
The exception stack can happen multiple times.

> What if the kernel stack is corrupt? Buffer overruns do that.
> This patch seems to just paper over the _real_ problem, namely the fact
> that the stack tracer code doesn't actually validate any of its arguments.

It has pretty good sanity checking by first using __get_user for the stack
data, and the regularly double checking the EIPs by looking them up
in CFI. If it can't find them it will abort.

> The old unwinder (well, at least for x86, and I assume x86-64 used that as
> the beginning point) didn't have this problem at all, exactly because it
> couldn't get on the wrong stack-page in the first place.

In this particular case what happened is that the dwarf2 unwinder
ended and then the fallback was in the wrong page and couldn't handle

> The old code literally had:
> static inline int valid_stack_ptr(struct thread_info *tinfo, void *p)
> {
> return p > (void *)tinfo &&
> p < (void *)tinfo + THREAD_SIZE - 3;
> }
> and would refuse to touch anything that wasn't in the stack page. It was

That was before interrupt stacks were introduced. With that it is significantly
more complicated. On x86-64 even more because there are exception stacks.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at