> Fengguang, if you're still listening, could you please rerun the tests
> on top of ce07a9415f26, with the attached patches also applied?

Ping!? it would be very good to get feedback on this asap.

> From e7840ad76515f0b5061fcdd098b57b7c01b61482 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-Id: 
> <e7840ad76515f0b5061fcdd098b57b7c01b61482.1507215196.git.jpoim...@redhat.com>
> From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:43:59 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] unwinder fixes
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> index b9389d72b2f7..0ecc42e34cc4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static void unwind_dump(struct unwind_state *state)
>       struct stack_info stack_info = {0};
>       unsigned long visit_mask = 0;
>  
> -     if (dumped_before)
> +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) || dumped_before)
>               return;
>  
>       dumped_before = true;
> @@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ static void unwind_dump(struct unwind_state *state)
>                       state->stack_info.type, state->stack_info.next_sp,
>                       state->stack_mask, state->graph_idx);
>  
> -     for (sp = state->orig_sp; sp; sp = PTR_ALIGN(stack_info.next_sp, 
> sizeof(long))) {
> +     for (sp = PTR_ALIGN(state->orig_sp, sizeof(long)); sp;
> +          sp = PTR_ALIGN(stack_info.next_sp, sizeof(long))) {
>               if (get_stack_info(sp, state->task, &stack_info, &visit_mask))
>                       break;
>  
> @@ -84,6 +85,12 @@ static size_t regs_size(struct pt_regs *regs)
>       return sizeof(*regs);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> +#define KERNEL_REGS_SIZE (sizeof(struct pt_regs) - 2*sizeof(long))
> +#else
> +#define KERNEL_REGS_SIZE (sizeof(struct pt_regs))
> +#endif
> +
>  static bool in_entry_code(unsigned long ip)
>  {
>       char *addr = (char *)ip;
> @@ -183,6 +190,7 @@ static bool is_last_task_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
>   * This determines if the frame pointer actually contains an encoded pointer 
> to
>   * pt_regs on the stack.  See ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER.
>   */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>  static struct pt_regs *decode_frame_pointer(unsigned long *bp)
>  {
>       unsigned long regs = (unsigned long)bp;
> @@ -192,6 +200,17 @@ static struct pt_regs *decode_frame_pointer(unsigned 
> long *bp)
>  
>       return (struct pt_regs *)(regs & ~0x1);
>  }
> +#else
> +static struct pt_regs *decode_frame_pointer(unsigned long *bp)
> +{
> +     unsigned long regs = (unsigned long)bp;
> +
> +     if (regs & 0x80000000)
> +             return NULL;
> +
> +     return (struct pt_regs *)(regs | 0x80000000);
> +}
> +#endif
>  
>  static bool update_stack_state(struct unwind_state *state,
>                              unsigned long *next_bp)
> @@ -211,7 +230,7 @@ static bool update_stack_state(struct unwind_state *state,
>       regs = decode_frame_pointer(next_bp);
>       if (regs) {
>               frame = (unsigned long *)regs;
> -             len = regs_size(regs);
> +             len = KERNEL_REGS_SIZE;
>               state->got_irq = true;
>       } else {
>               frame = next_bp;
> @@ -235,6 +254,14 @@ static bool update_stack_state(struct unwind_state 
> *state,
>           frame < prev_frame_end)
>               return false;
>  
> +     /*
> +      * On 32-bit with user mode regs, make sure the last two regs are safe
> +      * to access:
> +      */
> +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) && regs && user_mode(regs) &&
> +         !on_stack(info, frame, len + 2*sizeof(long)))
> +             return false;
> +
>       /* Move state to the next frame: */
>       if (regs) {
>               state->regs = regs;
> -- 
> 2.13.6
> 

> From 62105550632bfbd2e5e2f3768a37958a6872ec1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-Id: 
> <62105550632bfbd2e5e2f3768a37958a6872ec1e.1507215196.git.jpoim...@redhat.com>
> In-Reply-To: 
> <e7840ad76515f0b5061fcdd098b57b7c01b61482.1507215196.git.jpoim...@redhat.com>
> References: 
> <e7840ad76515f0b5061fcdd098b57b7c01b61482.1507215196.git.jpoim...@redhat.com>
> From: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:44:33 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep fixes
> 
> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 48 
> ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 841828ba35b9..6d540bdb24b3 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -1827,10 +1827,10 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct 
> held_lock *prev,
>              struct held_lock *next, int distance, struct stack_trace *trace,
>              int (*save)(struct stack_trace *trace))
>  {
> +     struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
>       struct lock_list *entry;
> -     int ret;
>       struct lock_list this;
> -     struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
> +     int ret;
>  
>       /*
>        * Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
> @@ -1844,8 +1844,17 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct 
> held_lock *prev,
>       this.class = hlock_class(next);
>       this.parent = NULL;
>       ret = check_noncircular(&this, hlock_class(prev), &target_entry);
> -     if (unlikely(!ret))
> +     if (unlikely(!ret)) {
> +             if (!trace->entries) {
> +                     /*
> +                      * If @save fails here, the printing might trigger
> +                      * a WARN but because of the !nr_entries it should
> +                      * not do bad things.
> +                      */
> +                     save(trace);
> +             }
>               return print_circular_bug(&this, target_entry, next, prev);
> +     }
>       else if (unlikely(ret < 0))
>               return print_bfs_bug(ret);
>  
> @@ -1892,7 +1901,7 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct 
> held_lock *prev,
>               return print_bfs_bug(ret);
>  
>  
> -     if (save && !save(trace))
> +     if (!trace->entries && !save(trace))
>               return 0;
>  
>       /*
> @@ -1912,20 +1921,6 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct 
> held_lock *prev,
>       if (!ret)
>               return 0;
>  
> -     /*
> -      * Debugging printouts:
> -      */
> -     if (verbose(hlock_class(prev)) || verbose(hlock_class(next))) {
> -             graph_unlock();
> -             printk("\n new dependency: ");
> -             print_lock_name(hlock_class(prev));
> -             printk(KERN_CONT " => ");
> -             print_lock_name(hlock_class(next));
> -             printk(KERN_CONT "\n");
> -             dump_stack();
> -             if (!graph_lock())
> -                     return 0;
> -     }
>       return 2;
>  }
>  
> @@ -1940,8 +1935,12 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct 
> held_lock *next)
>  {
>       int depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
>       struct held_lock *hlock;
> -     struct stack_trace trace;
> -     int (*save)(struct stack_trace *trace) = save_trace;
> +     struct stack_trace trace = {
> +             .nr_entries = 0,
> +             .max_entries = 0,
> +             .entries = NULL,
> +             .skip = 0,
> +     };
>  
>       /*
>        * Debugging checks.
> @@ -1967,18 +1966,11 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct 
> held_lock *next)
>                */
>               if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
>                       int ret = check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
> -                                             distance, &trace, save);
> +                                             distance, &trace, save_trace);
>                       if (!ret)
>                               return 0;
>  
>                       /*
> -                      * Stop saving stack_trace if save_trace() was
> -                      * called at least once:
> -                      */
> -                     if (save && ret == 2)
> -                             save = NULL;
> -
> -                     /*
>                        * Stop after the first non-trylock entry,
>                        * as non-trylock entries have added their
>                        * own direct dependencies already, so this
> -- 
> 2.13.6
> 

Reply via email to