From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755383AbdLOJk0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 04:40:26 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:39013 "EHLO mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754635AbdLOJkW (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 04:40:22 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBottaG9aQyEEgC6ixe0t9iRpGFNYyYrGxC21l23TLbZ+EB1aZ4sdaLYVuzS2iTq1P0RMb/4i0A== Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:40:09 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Torsten Duwe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] On ppc64le we HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Message-ID: <20171215194009.349b04da@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20171212140501.44vf4xcz6jhbqofd@treble> References: <20171004152516.25803-1-kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171005124313.GA25100@lst.de> <9f388c9a-8d74-865a-b113-f77322918b39@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171017144733.GB2136@lst.de> <95e6f942-88b7-0208-0eb0-2f5462aec410@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171020120739.GA20306@lst.de> <1508547548.5662.2.camel@gmail.com> <39bb7180-1adf-4df6-c9ba-c6f92754767f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171212113912.GA1907@lst.de> <20171212140501.44vf4xcz6jhbqofd@treble> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:05:01 -0600 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:39:12PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The "Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI" says in section 2.3.2.3: > > > > [...] There are several rules that must be adhered to in order to ensure > > reliable and consistent call chain backtracing: > > > > * Before a function calls any other function, it shall establish its > > own stack frame, whose size shall be a multiple of 16 bytes. > > What about leaf functions? If a leaf function doesn't establish a stack > frame, and it has inline asm which contains a blr to another function, > this ABI is broken. > > Also, even for non-leaf functions, is it possible for GCC to insert the > inline asm before it sets up the stack frame? (This is an occasional > problem on x86.) Inline asm must not have control transfer out of the statement unless it is asm goto. > > Also, what about hand-coded asm? Should follow the same rules if it uses the stack. > > > To me this sounds like the equivalent of HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE. > > This patch may be unneccessarily limited to ppc64le, but OTOH the only > > user of this flag so far is livepatching, which is only implemented on > > PPCs with 64-LE, a.k.a. ELF ABI v2. > > In addition to fixing the above issues, the unwinder also needs to > detect interrupts (i.e., preemption) and page faults on the stack of a > blocked task. If a function were preempted before it created a stack > frame, or if a leaf function blocked on a page fault, the stack trace > will skip the function's caller, so such a trace will need to be > reported to livepatch as unreliable. I don't think there is much problem there for powerpc. Stack frame creation and function call with return pointer are each atomic. > > Furthermore, the "reliable" unwinder needs to have a way to report an > error if it doesn't reach the end. This probably just means ensuring > that it reaches the user mode registers on the stack. > > And as Miroslav mentioned, once that's all done, implement > save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(). > > I don't think the above is documented anywhere, it would be good to put > it in the livepatch doc. > Thanks, Nick