From: Jinyang He <hejinyang@loongson.cn>
To: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>,
Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
Youling Tang <tangyouling@kylinos.cn>,
loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, mengqinggang@loongson.cn,
cailulu@loongson.cn, wanglei@loongson.cn, luweining@loongson.cn,
Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>,
Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loongarch: Only select HAVE_OBJTOOL and allow ORC unwinder if the inline assembler supports R_LARCH_{32,64}_PCREL
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:14:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2bd6ae20-ec56-c1a2-c5dd-e8c978a376d3@loongson.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96a2e8a80c06772b64fcbdba42e1dae2d68a53a7.camel@xry111.site>
On 2024-06-07 13:42, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-06-06 at 10:10 +0800, Jinyang He wrote:
>> What I just confused is that there is no ".cfi_*"
>> in the eplogue by clang, which may cause wrong backtrace if gdb set
>>
>> breakpoint there and backtrace. (But this is out of this topic.)
> I don't think it'll cause wrong backtrace. The real assemble code has
> restored the registers and missing .cfi_restore will just make unwinder
> restore them again. There are redundant works but not breakages.
$ cat hello.c:
extern void __attribute__((noinline)) foo() {}
int main() {
foo();
return (int)(long)__builtin_frame_address(0);
}
$ clang hello.c -S -g -o hello.s -O0 -fPIC
$ cat hello.s:
[...]
addi.d $sp, $sp, -32
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 32
st.d $ra, $sp, 24 # 8-byte Folded Spill
st.d $fp, $sp, 16 # 8-byte Folded Spill
.cfi_offset 1, -8
.cfi_offset 22, -16
addi.d $fp, $sp, 32
.cfi_def_cfa 22, 0
move $a0, $zero
st.w $a0, $fp, -20
.Ltmp2:
.loc 0 3 3 prologue_end # hello.c:3:3
bl %plt(foo)
.loc 0 4 21 # hello.c:4:21
move $a0, $fp
.loc 0 4 3 is_stmt 0 # hello.c:4:3
addi.w $a0, $a0, 0
ld.d $fp, $sp, 16 # 8-byte Folded Reload
<use gdb and set break ponint there>
ld.d $ra, $sp, 24 # 8-byte Folded Reload
.loc 0 4 3 epilogue_begin # hello.c:4:3
addi.d $sp, $sp, 32
ret
[...]
So how unwinder do if we <use gdb and set break ponint there>? I think
if we not give ".cfi_restore 22" or others info, it will consider
1) the $ra is in cfa-8
2) the cfa is $fp
So it will get $ra by $ra = *(long*)($fp-8). So it may unwind failed
because $fp has been restored and not the CFA now.
> For objtool the main difference seems a thing explained in
> https://maskray.me/blog/2020-11-08-stack-unwinding by Fangrui:
>
> Note: on RISC-V and LoongArch, the stack slot for the previous frame
> pointer is stored at fp[-2] instead of fp[0]. See [Consider
> standardising which stack slot fp points
> to](https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/issues/18)
> for the RISC-V discussion.
In most cases the $fp is saved at cfa-16. But for va args, something
becomes different at LoongArch (I do not know the case of riscv), the
$fp isn't saved at cfa-16. (e.g. printk?)
> So perhaps we just need to code a constant named "PREV_BP_OFFSET"
Can you give some detail?
> or
> something in arch/ and use it in update_cfi_state() instead of fully re-
> implement the entire function?
I feel that the update_cfi_state should be arch specific. I believe
that some logic can be reused, but each arch may have its own logic.
Thanks,
Jinyang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-07 7:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-04 15:07 Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 1:52 ` Huacai Chen
2024-06-05 4:38 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 5:21 ` Huacai Chen
2024-06-05 5:25 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 2:04 ` Heng Qi
2024-06-05 5:43 ` Nathan Chancellor
2024-06-05 5:54 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 6:25 ` Nathan Chancellor
2024-06-05 10:57 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 13:18 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 15:13 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-05 15:47 ` Jinyang He
2024-06-05 19:05 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-06 2:10 ` Jinyang He
2024-06-07 5:42 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-07 7:14 ` Jinyang He [this message]
2024-06-07 8:29 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-15 8:45 ` Huacai Chen
2024-06-15 8:53 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-15 9:33 ` Huacai Chen
2024-06-15 10:22 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-17 13:11 ` Huacai Chen
2024-06-17 13:38 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-06-17 13:47 ` Huacai Chen
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=2bd6ae20-ec56-c1a2-c5dd-e8c978a376d3@loongson.cn \
--to=hejinyang@loongson.cn \
--cc=cailulu@loongson.cn \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=hengqi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=justinstitt@google.com \
--cc=kernel@xen0n.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=luweining@loongson.cn \
--cc=mengqinggang@loongson.cn \
--cc=morbo@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tangyouling@kylinos.cn \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=wanglei@loongson.cn \
--cc=xry111@xry111.site \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
--cc=yujie.liu@intel.com \
/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®