Linux ARM-MSM sub-architecture
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <jon.medhurst@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Add unwinding annotations for 64bit division functions
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:00:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110922130031.GK12025@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1316693581.2053.38.camel@linaro1>

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:13:01PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 12:57 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:06:46PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 10:48 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > We could improve things a bit in the unwinder and assume
> > > > that if the fault address is the same as the .fnstart address, the
> > > > return value is always in LR and the SP not affected (that's unwinding
> > > > bytecode 0xb0). For a few instructions into the function prologue we
> > > > can't reliably get the unwinding information.
> > > 
> > > That would help make it possible to unwind out of kprobes handlers to
> > > the probed function. The kprobes code itself would need work as well,
> > > and possibly the undef handler. Do we think it is worthwhile to do
> > > this? 
> > 
> > Does kprobes need to trace beyond the probed function? If not, you get
> > the address of the probed function via pt_regs anyway, so no need for
> > unwinding beyond that.
> 
> To be honest, I'm not very sure how kprobes get used in the real world.
> Though, if stack unwinding from their handlers currently doesn't work
> and people had a usecase for it, we would expect them to complain.

The unwinding fix should be simple (I haven't tested it yet):

8<-----------------------------
ARM: Ignore the unwinding information for the first instruction in a function

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

When backtracing from the first instruction of a function, the prologue
has not been executed and the unwinding information is not valid. This
patch checks for this case and just assumes that the return address is
in LR.

Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
index d2cb0b3..946face 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
@@ -293,6 +293,16 @@ int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
 		return -URC_FAILURE;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * Check for backtrace on the first instruction of a function. The
+	 * prologue has not been executed yet and the unwinding information is
+	 * not valid. Assume that the return address is in LR.
+	 */
+	if (idx.addr == frame->pc) {
+		frame->pc = frame->lr;
+		return URC_OK;
+	}
+
 	ctrl.vrs[FP] = frame->fp;
 	ctrl.vrs[SP] = frame->sp;
 	ctrl.vrs[LR] = frame->lr;

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2011-09-22 13:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-09-19 22:11 [PATCH] arm: Add unwinding annotations for 64bit division functions Laura Abbott
2011-09-19 23:22 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-09-20  1:55   ` Laura Abbott
2011-09-20 13:27     ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-09-20 14:57       ` Catalin Marinas
2011-09-21 11:39     ` Dave Martin
2011-09-21 11:55       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-21 13:33         ` Dave Martin
2011-09-22  7:28         ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2011-09-22  9:48           ` Catalin Marinas
2011-09-22 11:06             ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2011-09-22 11:57               ` Catalin Marinas
2011-09-22 12:13                 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2011-09-22 13:00                   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2011-09-22 13:19                     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)

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=20110922130031.GK12025@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dave.martin@linaro.org \
    --cc=jon.medhurst@linaro.org \
    --cc=lauraa@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
    /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