From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Dylan Hatch <dylanbhatch@google.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Weinan Liu <wnliu@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Indu Bhagat <ibhagatgnu@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Jens Remus <jremus@linux.ibm.com>,
Prasanna Kumar T S M <ptsm@linux.microsoft.com>,
Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
joe.lawrence@redhat.com, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] arm64: entry: add unwind info for various kernel entries
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:26:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afIjFLbUrdxWA6eR@J2N7QTR9R3.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260428183643.3796063-4-dylanbhatch@google.com>
Hi Dylan,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 06:36:38PM +0000, Dylan Hatch wrote:
> From: Weinan Liu <wnliu@google.com>
>
> DWARF CFI (Call Frame Information) specifies how to recover the return
> address and callee-saved registers at each PC in a given function.
> Compilers are able to generate the CFI annotations when they compile
> the code to assembly language. For handcrafted assembly, we need to
> annotate them by hand.
>
> Annotate minimal CFI to enable stacktracing using SFrame for kernel
> exception entries through el1*_64_*() paths
I thought we were only consuming SFrame when unwinding an exeption
boundary?
We shouldn't be taking exceptions _from_ the entry assembly functions
unless something has gone horribly wrong, and so I don't see why we'd
need CFI entries for the entry assembly functions.
Am I missing some reason we need CFI entries for the entry assembly
functions? I strongly suspect it is not necessary to add these, and I'd
prefer to omit them.
> and irq entries through call_on_irq_stack()
Needing some sort of unwind annotations for call_on_irq_stack() makes
sense to me, but don't we need something for other assembly functions
too?
We can interrupt things like memset(); I assume we'll treat those as
unreliable until annotated?
Mark.
> Signed-off-by: Weinan Liu <wnliu@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Jens Remus <jremus@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jens Remus <jremus@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dylan Hatch <dylanbhatch@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index f8018b5c1f9a..dc55b0b19cfa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -30,6 +30,12 @@
> #include <asm/asm-uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/unistd.h>
>
> +/*
> + * Do not generate .eh_frame. Only generate .debug_frame and optionally
> + * .sframe (via assembler option --gsframe[-N]).
> + */
> + .cfi_sections .debug_frame
> +
> .macro clear_gp_regs
> .irp n,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29
> mov x\n, xzr
> @@ -575,7 +581,16 @@ SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL(el\el\ht\()_\regsize\()_\label)
> .if \el == 0
> b ret_to_user
> .else
> + /*
> + * Minimal DWARF CFI for unwinding across the call above.
> + * Enable unwinding for el1*_64_*() path only.
> + */
> + .cfi_startproc
> + .cfi_def_cfa_offset PT_REGS_SIZE
> + .cfi_offset 29, S_FP - PT_REGS_SIZE
> + .cfi_offset 30, S_LR - PT_REGS_SIZE
> b ret_to_kernel
> + .cfi_endproc
> .endif
> SYM_CODE_END(el\el\ht\()_\regsize\()_\label)
> .endm
> @@ -872,6 +887,7 @@ NOKPROBE(ret_from_fork)
> * Calls func(regs) using this CPU's irq stack and shadow irq stack.
> */
> SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
> + .cfi_startproc
> save_and_disable_daif x9
> #ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> get_current_task x16
> @@ -882,6 +898,9 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
> /* Create a frame record to save our LR and SP (implicit in FP) */
> stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
> mov x29, sp
> + .cfi_def_cfa 29, 16
> + .cfi_offset 29, -16
> + .cfi_offset 30, -8
>
> ldr_this_cpu x16, irq_stack_ptr, x17
>
> @@ -897,9 +916,13 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
> */
> mov sp, x29
> ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
> + .cfi_restore 29
> + .cfi_restore 30
> + .cfi_def_cfa 31, 0
> scs_load_current
> restore_irq x9
> ret
> + .cfi_endproc
> SYM_FUNC_END(call_on_irq_stack)
> NOKPROBE(call_on_irq_stack)
>
> --
> 2.54.0.545.g6539524ca2-goog
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-29 15:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-28 18:36 [PATCH v5 0/8] unwind, arm64: add sframe unwinder for kernel Dylan Hatch
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] sframe: Allow kernelspace sframe sections Dylan Hatch
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] arm64, unwind: build kernel with sframe V3 info Dylan Hatch
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] arm64: entry: add unwind info for various kernel entries Dylan Hatch
2026-04-29 15:26 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] sframe: Provide PC lookup for vmlinux .sframe section Dylan Hatch
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] sframe: Allow unsorted FDEs Dylan Hatch
2026-04-30 10:04 ` Jens Remus
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] arm64/module, sframe: Add sframe support for modules Dylan Hatch
2026-04-30 10:04 ` Jens Remus
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] sframe: Introduce in-kernel SFRAME_VALIDATION Dylan Hatch
2026-04-30 10:04 ` Jens Remus
2026-04-28 18:36 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] unwind: arm64: Use sframe to unwind interrupt frames Dylan Hatch
2026-05-01 16:46 ` Mark Rutland
2026-05-04 8:47 ` Jens Remus
2026-04-29 17:18 ` [PATCH v5 0/8] unwind, arm64: add sframe unwinder for kernel Mark Rutland
2026-04-30 10:11 ` Jens Remus
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=afIjFLbUrdxWA6eR@J2N7QTR9R3.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dylanbhatch@google.com \
--cc=ibhagatgnu@gmail.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=jremus@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ptsm@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=wnliu@google.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