From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/entry: Fix unwinding from kprobe on PUSH/POP instruction
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:46:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y+4JhmEGDR16EVpi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230215231637.laryjsua5p4wcd57@treble>
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, I was specifically thinking about #DB, why don't we need to
> > decrement when we put a hardware breakpoint on a stack modifying op?
>
> I assume you mean the INT1 instruction. Yeah, maybe we should care
> about that.
Nah, I was thinking #DB from DR7, but ...
> I'm struggling to come up with any decent ideas about how to implement
> that. Presumably the #DB handler would have to communicate to the
> unwinder somehow whether the given frame is a trap.
... I had forgotten that #DB is not unconditionally trap :/ The worst
part seems to be that code breakpoints are faults while data breakpoints
are traps.
And you so don't want to go decode the DR registers in the unwinder,
quality mess this :/
Put a breakpoint on the stack and you've got PUSH doing a trap, put a
breakpoint on the PUSH instruction and you get a fault, and lo and
behold, you get a different unwind :-(
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-16 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-10 22:42 [PATCH 0/2] x86/unwind/orc: " Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-10 22:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/unwind/orc: Add 'signal' field to ORC metadata Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-11 11:52 ` [tip: objtool/core] " tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-10 22:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/entry: Fix unwinding from kprobe on PUSH/POP instruction Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-11 11:52 ` [tip: objtool/core] " tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-13 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] " Masami Hiramatsu
2023-02-14 11:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-14 17:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-15 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-15 23:16 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-16 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-16 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-16 14:35 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2023-02-16 16:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-16 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-16 16:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-17 12:44 ` 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=Y+4JhmEGDR16EVpi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=chenzhongjin@huawei.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®