diff mbox series

[1/2] x86/xen: Make the boot CPU idle task reliable

Message ID 20200312142007.11488-2-mbenes@suse.cz (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Headers show
Series x86/xen: Make idle tasks reliable | expand

Commit Message

Miroslav Benes March 12, 2020, 2:20 p.m. UTC
The unwinder reports the boot CPU idle task's stack on XEN PV as
unreliable, which affects at least live patching. There are two reasons
for this. First, the task does not follow the x86 convention that its
stack starts at the offset right below saved pt_regs. It allows the
unwinder to easily detect the end of the stack and verify it. Second,
startup_xen() function does not store the return address before jumping
to xen_start_kernel() which confuses the unwinder.

Amend both issues by moving the starting point of initial stack in
startup_xen() and storing the return address before the jump.

Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
---
 arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Andrew Cooper March 12, 2020, 3:04 p.m. UTC | #1
On 12/03/2020 14:20, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> The unwinder reports the boot CPU idle task's stack on XEN PV as
> unreliable, which affects at least live patching. There are two reasons
> for this. First, the task does not follow the x86 convention that its
> stack starts at the offset right below saved pt_regs. It allows the
> unwinder to easily detect the end of the stack and verify it. Second,
> startup_xen() function does not store the return address before jumping
> to xen_start_kernel() which confuses the unwinder.
>
> Amend both issues by moving the starting point of initial stack in
> startup_xen() and storing the return address before the jump.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> index 1d0cee3163e4..642f346bfe02 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
>  	rep __ASM_SIZE(stos)
>  
>  	mov %_ASM_SI, xen_start_info
> -	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE, %_ASM_SP
> +	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-SIZEOF_PTREGS, %_ASM_SP
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>  	/* Set up %gs.
> @@ -51,7 +51,9 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
>  	wrmsr
>  #endif
>  
> +	push $1f
>  	jmp xen_start_kernel
> +1:

Hang on.  Isn't this just a `call` instruction written in longhand?

~Andrew
Miroslav Benes March 12, 2020, 3:17 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Andrew Cooper wrote:

> On 12/03/2020 14:20, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > The unwinder reports the boot CPU idle task's stack on XEN PV as
> > unreliable, which affects at least live patching. There are two reasons
> > for this. First, the task does not follow the x86 convention that its
> > stack starts at the offset right below saved pt_regs. It allows the
> > unwinder to easily detect the end of the stack and verify it. Second,
> > startup_xen() function does not store the return address before jumping
> > to xen_start_kernel() which confuses the unwinder.
> >
> > Amend both issues by moving the starting point of initial stack in
> > startup_xen() and storing the return address before the jump.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> > index 1d0cee3163e4..642f346bfe02 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
> >  	rep __ASM_SIZE(stos)
> >  
> >  	mov %_ASM_SI, xen_start_info
> > -	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE, %_ASM_SP
> > +	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-SIZEOF_PTREGS, %_ASM_SP
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >  	/* Set up %gs.
> > @@ -51,7 +51,9 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
> >  	wrmsr
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +	push $1f
> >  	jmp xen_start_kernel
> > +1:
> 
> Hang on.  Isn't this just a `call` instruction written in longhand?

It is (as far as I know). I wanted to keep it opencoded for a reason I 
don't remember now. I'll change it. Thanks.

Miroslav
Boris Ostrovsky March 16, 2020, 2:33 p.m. UTC | #3
On 3/12/20 10:20 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
>  	rep __ASM_SIZE(stos)
>  
>  	mov %_ASM_SI, xen_start_info
> -	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE, %_ASM_SP
> +	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-SIZEOF_PTREGS, %_ASM_SP

This is initial_stack, isn't it?

-boris
Miroslav Benes March 17, 2020, 9:13 a.m. UTC | #4
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:

> 
> 
> On 3/12/20 10:20 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
> > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
> >  	rep __ASM_SIZE(stos)
> >  
> >  	mov %_ASM_SI, xen_start_info
> > -	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE, %_ASM_SP
> > +	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-SIZEOF_PTREGS, %_ASM_SP
> 
> This is initial_stack, isn't it?

It is. I'll change it.

Thanks
Miroslav
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
index 1d0cee3163e4..642f346bfe02 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@  SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
 	rep __ASM_SIZE(stos)
 
 	mov %_ASM_SI, xen_start_info
-	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE, %_ASM_SP
+	mov $init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-SIZEOF_PTREGS, %_ASM_SP
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
 	/* Set up %gs.
@@ -51,7 +51,9 @@  SYM_CODE_START(startup_xen)
 	wrmsr
 #endif
 
+	push $1f
 	jmp xen_start_kernel
+1:
 SYM_CODE_END(startup_xen)
 	__FINIT
 #endif