From 003f0cf973631efb9e6844bb8b29b67c5d5cd109 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vernon Lovejoy Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 12:42:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] x86/show_trace_log_lvl: Ensure stack pointer is aligned, again commit 2e4be0d011f21593c6b316806779ba1eba2cd7e0 upstream. The commit e335bb51cc15 ("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 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: e335bb51cc15 ("x86/unwind: Ensure stack pointer is aligned") Signed-off-by: Vernon Lovejoy Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230512104232.GA10227@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c index 2b17a5cec099..7e698c45760c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ 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); /* @@ -190,9 +189,13 @@ 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