On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 13:19:45 +0300 Alexander Popov <alex.po...@linux.com> wrote:
> On 11.11.2018 2:30, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 01:05:30 +0300 > > Alexander Popov <alex.po...@linux.com> wrote: > > > >> The stackleak_erase() function is called on the trampoline stack at the > >> end of syscall. This stack is not big enough for ftrace operations, > >> e.g. it can be overflowed if we enable kprobe_events for > >> stackleak_erase(). > > > > Is the issue with kprobes or with function tracing? Because this stops > > function tracing which I only want disabled if function tracing itself > > is an issue, not for other things that may use the function tracing > > infrastructure. > > Hello Steven, > > I believe that stackleak erasing is not compatible with function tracing > itself. > That's what the kernel testing robot has hit: > https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/11/09/1 > > I used kprobe_events just to reproduce the problem: > https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/11/09/4 Have you tried adding a "notrace" to stackleak_erase()? Not tracing the entire file is a bit of overkill. There's no reason ftrace can't trace stack_erasing_sysctl() or perhaps even stackleak_track_stack() as that may be very interesting to trace. -- Steve
