Re: [PATCH -tip v8 11/13] x86/unwind: Recover kretprobe trampoline entry

Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-06T07:55:03Z

On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 12:42:57AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:36:14 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 04:07:06PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > @@ -549,7 +548,15 @@ bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> > > (void *)orig_ip);
> > > goto err;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > + /*
> > > + * There is a small chance to interrupt at the entry of
> > > + * kretprobe_trampoline where the ORC info doesn't exist.
> > > + * That point is right after the RET to kretprobe_trampoline
> > > + * which was modified return address. So the @addr_p must
> > > + * be right before the regs->sp.
> > > + */
> > > + state->ip = unwind_recover_kretprobe(state, state->ip,
> > > + (unsigned long *)(state->sp - sizeof(long)));
> > > state->regs = (struct pt_regs *)sp;
> > > state->prev_regs = NULL;
> > > state->full_regs = true;
> > > @@ -562,6 +569,9 @@ bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> > > (void *)orig_ip);
> > > goto err;
> > > }
> > > + /* See UNWIND_HINT_TYPE_REGS case comment. */
> > > + state->ip = unwind_recover_kretprobe(state, state->ip,
> > > + (unsigned long *)(state->sp - sizeof(long)));
> > >
> > > if (state->full_regs)
> > > state->prev_regs = state->regs;
> >
> > Why doesn't the ftrace case have this? That is, why aren't both return
> > trampolines having the same general shape?
>
> Ah, this strongly depends what the trampoline code does.
> For the kretprobe case, the PUSHQ at the entry of the kretprobe_trampoline()
> does not covered by UNWIND_HINT_FUNC. Thus it needs to find 'correct_ret_addr'
> by the frame pointer (which is next to the sp).
>
> "kretprobe_trampoline:\n"
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> /* Push fake return address to tell the unwinder it's a kretprobe */
> " pushq $kretprobe_trampoline\n"
> UNWIND_HINT_FUNC
>
> But I'm not so sure how ftrace treat it. It seems that the return_to_handler()
> doesn't care such case. (anyway, return_to_handler() does not return but jump
> to the original call-site, in that case, the information will be lost.)

I find it bothersome (OCD, sorry :-) that both return trampolines behave
differently. Doubly so because I know people (Steve in particular) have
been talking about unifying them.

Steve, can you clarify the ftrace side here? Afaict return_to_handler()
is similarly affected.