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
next prev parent 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®