From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: return_address: disable again for CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:21:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YiXck5u/cxE7JZz/@Red> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHbnocO-YaQrc15xWW2geg67Upthf677npA2esz1nO9Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Le Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 10:04:23PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel a écrit :
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 20:20, Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 12:32:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel a écrit :
> > > Commit 41918ec82eb6 ("ARM: ftrace: enable the graph tracer with the EABI
> > > unwinder") removed the dummy version of return_address() that was
> > > provided for the CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y case, on the assumption that the
> > > removal of the kernel_text_address() call from unwind_frame() in the
> > > preceding patch made it safe to do so.
> > >
> > > However, this turns out not to be the case: Corentin reports warnings
> > > about suspicious RCU usage and other strange behavior that seems to
> > > originate in the stack unwinding that occurs in return_address().
> > >
> > > Given that the function graph tracer (which is what these changes were
> > > enabling for CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y builds) does not appear to care about
> > > this distinction, let's revert return_address() to the old state.
> > >
> > > Cc: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
> > > Fixes: 41918ec82eb6 ("ARM: ftrace: enable the graph tracer with the EABI unwinder")
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > On next-20220304 even with both
> > ARM: unwind: avoid spurious warnings on bogus code addresses
> > and
> > ARM: return_address: disable again for CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y
> >
> > I got:
> > [ 0.134043] =============================
> > [ 0.138372] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 0.142702] 5.17.0-rc6-next-20220304-dirty #3 Not tainted
> ...
> > [ 1.015443] show_stack from 0xf0991e6c
> >
> > On next-20220303 I got nothing.
>
> This makes me suspect that this is unrelated, given that no changes
> were applied to Russell's tree in the mean time, as far as I can tell.
Hello
I bisected to dc6e0818bc9a0336d9accf3ea35d146d72aa7a18 ("sched/cpuacct: Optimize away RCU read lock")
but reverting lead to some remaining RCU (but far less than before).
I continue to debug it.
Regards
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-07 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-02 11:32 [PATCH] ARM: return_address: disable again for CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y Ard Biesheuvel
2022-03-02 12:43 ` Corentin Labbe
2022-03-05 20:20 ` Corentin Labbe
2022-03-05 22:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-03-07 10:21 ` Corentin Labbe [this message]
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=YiXck5u/cxE7JZz/@Red \
--to=clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).