mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: fix build of 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:55:39 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171107175539.zkbzaapmok2b7hbb@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1711061812460.18820@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>

[ Adding Ingo to cc because I believe it was his suggestion to hide the
  guess unwinder behind CONFIG_EXPERT. ]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 06:27:53PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> This patch fixes building of 64-bit kernel on 32-bit userspace (I tested 
> it on RHEL-6-i686 and Debian-Sid-x32).

Thanks, I'll review the patch.

> There are still some more bugs - when building 64-bit kernel on 32-bit
> Debian 7 distribution, objtool corrupts object files so that the linker
> doesn't recognize them (ld doesn't recognize the format of the file at all
> and gold prints a lot of errors).

Hm, we should figure out what's going on there...

> Another problem - when building 32-bit kernel, why do you force frame
> pointers on and why did you hide CONFIG_GUESS_UNWINDER behind
> CONFIG_EXPERT? Frame pointers increase code size and register pressure,
> most users don't need precise stacktraces, so CONFIG_GUESS_UNWINDER should
> be default for non-expert users just like it was before.
> 
> Is there some technical reason why do you want to avoid 
> CONFIG_GUESS_UNWINDER?

The technical reason for avoiding the guess unwinder is that it's
sketchy: it gives false positive results.  Not only for oopses, but for
all the other users of the unwinder: /proc/<pid>/stack, perf, lockdep,
etc.  So it's a correctness issue.

I agree with you that the frame pointer unwinder has drawbacks, but if
somebody cares about those drawbacks, I would consider that person an
"expert" ;-)

-- 
Josh

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-07 17:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-06 23:27 Mikulas Patocka
2017-11-07 17:55 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2017-11-07 21:25   ` Mikulas Patocka
2017-11-08  8:07     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-11-27 17:32   ` Sven Joachim
2017-11-27 19:27     ` Josh Poimboeuf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171107175539.zkbzaapmok2b7hbb@treble \
    --to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
    --cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®