From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Kairui Song <kasong@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] x86/unwind/orc: Fall back to using frame pointers for generated code
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:41:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190614074136.GR3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190614060006.na6nfl6shawsyj3i@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:00:09PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> There is something wrong with
> commit d15d356887e7 ("perf/x86: Make perf callchains work without CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER")
It assumes we can always unwind stack, which is, imo, not a weird thing.
> If I simply revert it and have CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER=y
> JITed stacks work just fine, because
> bpf_get_stackid()->get_perf_callchain()
> need to start unwinding before any bpf stuff.
How does stack unwinding work if we try and unwind from an interrupt
that hits inside a BPF program? That too needs to work properly.
> After that commit it needs to go through which is a bug on its own.
> imo patch 1 doesn't really fix that issue.
This we agree on, patch 1 doesn't solve that at all. But we also should
not loose the initial regs->ip value.
> As far as mangled rbp can we partially undo old
> commit 177366bf7ceb ("bpf: change x86 JITed program stack layout")
> that introduced that rbp adjustment.
> Going through bpf code is only interesting in case of panics somewhere
> in bpf helpers. Back then we didn't even have ksym of jited code.
I disagree here, interrupts/NMIs hitting inside BPF should be able to
reliably unwind the entire stack. Back then is irrelevant, these days we
expect a reliable unwind.
> Anyhow I agree that we need to make the jited frame proper,
> but unwinding need to start before any bpf stuff.
> That's a bigger issue.
I strongly disagree, we should be able to unwind through bpf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-14 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 13:20 [PATCH 0/9] x86/bpf: unwinder fixes Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:20 ` [PATCH 1/9] perf/x86: Always store regs->ip in perf_callchain_kernel() Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:20 ` [PATCH 2/9] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 20:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 1:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 1:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 1:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 7:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-14 7:35 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 8:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-14 15:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 16:11 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 3/9] x86/bpf: Move epilogue generation to a dedicated function Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 18:57 ` Song Liu
2019-06-13 19:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 4/9] x86/bpf: Simplify prologue generation Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 5/9] x86/bpf: Support SIB byte generation Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 6/9] x86/bpf: Fix JIT frame pointer usage Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 21:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 1:22 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 1:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 1:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 10:50 ` David Laight
2019-06-14 13:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 13:58 ` David Laight
2019-06-14 17:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-17 15:07 ` David Laight
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 7/9] x86/unwind/orc: Fall back to using frame pointers for generated code Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 22:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 1:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 1:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 1:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 2:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 4:50 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 6:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 7:41 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-06-14 13:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 15:29 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 13:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 15:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 15:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 8/9] x86/bpf: Convert asm comments to AT&T syntax Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 18:52 ` Song Liu
2019-06-13 19:11 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-14 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-14 15:13 ` Song Liu
2019-06-13 13:21 ` [PATCH 9/9] x86/bpf: Convert MOV function/macro argument ordering " Josh Poimboeuf
2019-06-13 19:00 ` [PATCH 0/9] x86/bpf: unwinder fixes Song Liu
2019-06-13 20:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20190614074136.GR3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=kasong@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome