From d7110a26e5905ec2fe3fc88bc6a538901accb72b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nathan Chancellor Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:53:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mmiotrace: Use cpumask_available() for cpumask_var_t variables When building with Clang + -Wtautological-compare and CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK unset: arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c:375:6: warning: comparison of array 'downed_cpus' equal to a null pointer is always false [-Wtautological-pointer-compare] if (downed_cpus == NULL && ^~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c:405:6: warning: comparison of array 'downed_cpus' equal to a null pointer is always false [-Wtautological-pointer-compare] if (downed_cpus == NULL || cpumask_weight(downed_cpus) == 0) ^~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ 2 warnings generated. Commit f7e30f01a9e2 ("cpumask: Add helper cpumask_available()") added cpumask_available() to fix warnings of this nature. Use that here so that clang does not warn regardless of CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK's value. Reported-by: Sedat Dilek Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/982 Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200408205323.44490-1-natechancellor@gmail.com --- arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c b/arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c index 109325d77b3e..43fd19b3f118 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mmio-mod.c @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ static void enter_uniprocessor(void) int cpu; int err; - if (downed_cpus == NULL && + if (!cpumask_available(downed_cpus) && !alloc_cpumask_var(&downed_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) { pr_notice("Failed to allocate mask\n"); goto out; @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ static void leave_uniprocessor(void) int cpu; int err; - if (downed_cpus == NULL || cpumask_weight(downed_cpus) == 0) + if (!cpumask_available(downed_cpus) || cpumask_weight(downed_cpus) == 0) return; pr_notice("Re-enabling CPUs...\n"); for_each_cpu(cpu, downed_cpus) { From 187b96db5ca79423618dfa29a05c438c34f9e1f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Poimboeuf Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 08:54:35 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] x86/unwind/orc: Fix unwind_get_return_address_ptr() for inactive tasks Normally, show_trace_log_lvl() scans the stack, looking for text addresses to print. In parallel, it unwinds the stack with unwind_next_frame(). If the stack address matches the pointer returned by unwind_get_return_address_ptr() for the current frame, the text address is printed normally without a question mark. Otherwise it's considered a breadcrumb (potentially from a previous call path) and it's printed with a question mark to indicate that the address is unreliable and typically can be ignored. Since the following commit: f1d9a2abff66 ("x86/unwind/orc: Don't skip the first frame for inactive tasks") ... for inactive tasks, show_trace_log_lvl() prints *only* unreliable addresses (prepended with '?'). That happens because, for the first frame of an inactive task, unwind_get_return_address_ptr() returns the wrong return address pointer: one word *below* the task stack pointer. show_trace_log_lvl() starts scanning at the stack pointer itself, so it never finds the first 'reliable' address, causing only guesses to being printed. The first frame of an inactive task isn't a normal stack frame. It's actually just an instance of 'struct inactive_task_frame' which is left behind by __switch_to_asm(). Now that this inactive frame is actually exposed to callers, fix unwind_get_return_address_ptr() to interpret it properly. Fixes: f1d9a2abff66 ("x86/unwind/orc: Don't skip the first frame for inactive tasks") Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200522135435.vbxs7umku5pyrdbk@treble --- arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c index fa79e4227d3d..7f969b2d240f 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c @@ -320,12 +320,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unwind_get_return_address); unsigned long *unwind_get_return_address_ptr(struct unwind_state *state) { + struct task_struct *task = state->task; + if (unwind_done(state)) return NULL; if (state->regs) return &state->regs->ip; + if (task != current && state->sp == task->thread.sp) { + struct inactive_task_frame *frame = (void *)task->thread.sp; + return &frame->ret_addr; + } + if (state->sp) return (unsigned long *)state->sp - 1;