When unwinding stack frames we must take care not to unwind
areas of memory that lie outside of the known extent of the stack.
This patch fixes an incorrect calculation of the stack base where
THREAD_SIZE is added to the stack pointer after it has already
been aligned to this value. Since the ALIGN macro performs this
addition internally, we end up overshooting the base by 8k.
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
As __builtin_return_address(n) doesn't work for ARM with n > 0, the
kernel needs its own implementation.
This fixes many warnings saying:
warning: unsupported argument to '__builtin_return_address'
The new methods and walk_stackframe must not be instrumented because
CALLER_ADDRESSx is used in the various tracers and tracing the tracer is
a bad idea.
What's currently missing is an implementation using unwind tables. This
is not fatal though, it's just that the tracers don't get enough
information to be really useful.
Note that if both ARM_UNWIND and FRAME_POINTER are enabled,
walk_stackframe uses unwind information. So in this case the same
implementation is used as when FRAME_POINTER is disabled.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
This patch changes the walk_stacktrace and its callers for easier
integration of stack unwinding. The arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.h file is
also moved to arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h.
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Andrew Morton reported this against linux-next:
ERROR: ".save_stack_trace" [tests/backtracetest.ko] undefined!
Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Available for !SMP only at the moment.
From Russell:
|Basically, if a thread is running on a CPU, thread_saved_fp() is invalid.
|So, the question is: what guarantees do we have here that 'tsk' is not
|running on another CPU?
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
Tested-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>
Fix an oops in the stacktrace code, caused by improper range checking.
We subtract 12 off 'fp' before testing to see if it's below the low
bound. However, if 'fp' were zero before, it becomes a very large
positive number, causing this test to succeed where it should fail.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
ab1b6f03a1 said
- remove the unused task argument to save_stack_trace, it's always current
then broke arm:
arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace'
include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here
arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace'
include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Add support for stacktrace. Use the new stacktrace code with
oprofile instead of it's version; there's no point having
multiple versions of stacktracing in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
