[Crash-utility] Re: Fix irq_stack_size on ARM64

Hi Lianbo, doc: Thank to Dave for pointing that out. I apologize for not realizing this before, and resend it as following. whether vmcoreinfo is present or not. So I changed the execution order of the code: when KASAN is enabled and with vmcoreinfo. --- arm64.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arm64.c b/arm64.c index 78e6609..49799e6 100644 --- a/arm64.c +++ b/arm64.c @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ static int arm64_is_uvaddr(ulong, struct task_context *); static void arm64_calc_KERNELPACMASK(void); static void arm64_recalc_KERNELPACMASK(void); static int arm64_get_vmcoreinfo(unsigned long *vaddr, const char *label, int base); +static ulong arm64_set_irq_stack_size(void); struct kernel_range { unsigned long modules_vaddr, modules_end; @@ -2234,8 +2235,10 @@ arm64_irq_stack_init(void) if (MEMBER_EXISTS("thread_union", "stack")) { if ((sz = MEMBER_SIZE("thread_union", "stack")) > 0) ms->irq_stack_size = sz; - } else - ms->irq_stack_size = ARM64_IRQ_STACK_SIZE; + } else { + ulong res = arm64_set_irq_stack_size(); + ms->irq_stack_size = (res > 0) ? res : ARM64_IRQ_STACK_SIZE; + } machdep->flags |= IRQ_STACKS; @@ -4950,6 +4953,48 @@ static void arm64_recalc_KERNELPACMASK(void){ } } +static ulong arm64_set_irq_stack_size(void) +{ + int min_thread_shift = 14; + ulong thread_shift = 0; + char buf1[BUFSIZE]; + char *pos1, *pos2; + int errflag = 0; + + sprintf(buf1, "x/32i vectors"); + open_tmpfile(); + if (!gdb_pass_through(buf1, pc->tmpfile, GNU_RETURN_ON_ERROR)) { + goto out; + } + rewind(pc->tmpfile); + while (fgets(buf1, BUFSIZE, pc->tmpfile)) { + if ((pos1 = strstr(buf1, "tbnz"))) { + if ((pos2 = strchr(pos1, '#'))) { + pos2 += 1; + for(pos1=pos2; *pos2!='\0' && *pos2!=','; pos2++); + *pos2 = '\0'; + thread_shift = stol(pos1, RETURN_ON_ERROR|QUIET, &errflag); + if (errflag) { + thread_shift = 0; + } + break; + } + } + } +out: + close_tmpfile(); + + if ((!thread_shift) && kernel_symbol_exists("kasan_enable_current")) { + min_thread_shift += 1; + thread_shift = (min_thread_shift < machdep->pageshift) ? machdep->pageshift : min_thread_shift; + } + + if (!thread_shift) + return 0; + else + return ((1UL) << thread_shift); +} + #endif /* ARM64 */ Thanks yeping. Dave Young <dyoung(a)redhat.com&gt; 于2024年7月31日周三 14:58写道： > > > Hi, sending a patch as attachment is bad, you can refer to the kernel doc: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.14/process/email-clients.html > > "Patches for the Linux kernel are submitted via email, preferably as > inline text in the body of the email. Some maintainers accept > attachments, but then the attachments should have content-type > text/plain. However, attachments are generally frowned upon because it > makes quoting portions of the patch more difficult in the patch review > process." > > Crash is different from kernel but the email process is similar, I > think you can resend it with a proper format instead of maintainers > manually copying them in the email body for review. > > Thanks > Dave > >