Re: Concerns about SFrame viability for userspace stack walking

["Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>]

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 3:26 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:53:32PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
>> > I've been following the SFrame discussion and wanted to share some
>> > concerns about its viability for userspace adoption, based on concrete
>> > measurements and comparison with existing compact unwind
>> > implementations in LLVM.
>> >
>> > **Size overhead concerns**
>> >
>> > Measurements on a x86-64 clang binary show that .sframe (8.87 MiB) is
>> > approximately 10% larger than the combined size of .eh_frame and
>> > .eh_frame_hdr (8.06 MiB total).  This is problematic because .eh_frame
>> > cannot be eliminated - it contains essential information for restoring
>> > callee-saved registers, LSDA, and personality information needed for
>> > debugging (e.g. reading local variables in a coredump) and C++
>> > exception handling.
>> >
>> > This means adopting SFrame would result in carrying both formats, with
>> > a large net size increase.
>>
>> So the SFrame unwinder is fairly simple code, but what does an .eh_frame
>> unwinder look like? Having read most of the links in your email, there
>> seem to be references to DWARF byte code interpreters and stuff like
>> that.
>>
>> So while the format compactness is one aspect, the thing I find no
>> mention of, is the unwinder complexity.
>>
>> There have been a number of attempts to do DWARF unwinding in
>> kernel space and while I think some architecture do it, x86_64 has had
>> very bad experiences with it. At some point I think Linus just said no
>> more, no DWARF, not ever.
>>
>> So from a situation where compilers were generating bad CFI unwind
>> information, a horribly complex unwinder that could crash the kernel
>> harder than the thing it was reporting on and manual CFI annotations in
>> assembly that were never quite right, objtool and ORC were born.
>>
>> The win was many:
>>
>>  - simple robust unwinder
>>  - no manual CFI annotations that could be wrong
>>  - no reliance on compilers that would get it wrong
>>
>> and I think this is where SFrame came from. I don't think the x86_64
>> Linux kernel will ever natively adopt SFrame, ORC works really well for
>> us.
>>
>> However, we do need something to unwind userspace. And yes, personally
>> I'm in the frame-pointer camp, that's always worked well for me.
>> Distro's however don't seem to like it much, which means that every time
>> I do have to profile something userspace, I get to rebuild all the
>> relevant code with framepointers on (which is not hard, but tedious).
>>
>> Barring that, we need something for which the unwind code is simple and
>> robust -- and I *think* this has disqualified .eh_frame and full on
>> DWARF.
>>
>> And this is again where SFrame comes in -- its unwinder is simple,
>> something we can run in kernel space.
>>
>> I really don't much care for the particulars, and frame pointers work
>> for me -- but I do care about the kernel unwinder code. It had better be
>> simple and robvst.
>>
>> So if you want us to use .eh_frame, great, show us a simple and robust
>> unwinder.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for this perspective—the unwinder complexity concern is
> absolutely valid and critical for kernel use.
> To clarify my motivation: I've seen attempts to use SFrame for
> userspace adoption
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SFrameInBinaries ), and I
> believe it's not viable for that purpose given the size overhead I
> documented. My concerns are primarily about userspace adoption, not
> the kernel's internal unwinding.
>
> If SFrame is exclusively a kernel-space feature, it could be
> implemented entirely within objtool – similar to how objtool --link
> --orc generates ORC info for vmlinux.o. This approach would eliminate
> the need for any modifications to assemblers and linkers, while
> allowing SFrame to evolve in any incompatible way.
>
> For userspace, we could instead modify assemblers and linkers to
> support a more compact format or an extension to .eh_frame , but it
> won't be SFrame (all of Apple’s compact unwind, ARM EHABI’s
> exidx/extab, and Microsoft’s pdata/xdata can implement C++ exception
> handling , while SFrame can't, leading to a huge missed opportunity.)

The purpose of SFrame is not to be a more compact replacement for
.eh_frame.  It is intended to be used to walk stacks, not to unwind
them.