x86/show_trace_log_lvl: Ensure stack pointer is aligned, again
commit 2e4be0d011f21593c6b316806779ba1eba2cd7e0 upstream. The commite335bb51cc
("x86/unwind: Ensure stack pointer is aligned") tried to align the stack pointer in show_trace_log_lvl(), otherwise the "stack < stack_info.end" check can't guarantee that the last read does not go past the end of the stack. However, we have the same problem with the initial value of the stack pointer, it can also be unaligned. So without this patch this trivial kernel module #include <linux/module.h> static int init(void) { asm volatile("sub $0x4,%rsp"); dump_stack(); asm volatile("add $0x4,%rsp"); return -EAGAIN; } module_init(init); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); crashes the kernel. Fixes:e335bb51cc
("x86/unwind: Ensure stack pointer is aligned") Signed-off-by: Vernon Lovejoy <vlovejoy@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230512104232.GA10227@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a7edc86e14
commit
d8cfe5ccc9
@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ static void show_trace_log_lvl(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
|
||||
printk("%sCall Trace:\n", log_lvl);
|
||||
|
||||
unwind_start(&state, task, regs, stack);
|
||||
stack = stack ? : get_stack_pointer(task, regs);
|
||||
regs = unwind_get_entry_regs(&state, &partial);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
@ -214,9 +213,13 @@ static void show_trace_log_lvl(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
|
||||
* - hardirq stack
|
||||
* - entry stack
|
||||
*/
|
||||
for ( ; stack; stack = PTR_ALIGN(stack_info.next_sp, sizeof(long))) {
|
||||
for (stack = stack ?: get_stack_pointer(task, regs);
|
||||
stack;
|
||||
stack = stack_info.next_sp) {
|
||||
const char *stack_name;
|
||||
|
||||
stack = PTR_ALIGN(stack, sizeof(long));
|
||||
|
||||
if (get_stack_info(stack, task, &stack_info, &visit_mask)) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* We weren't on a valid stack. It's possible that
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user