From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C85C433EF for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KqjNC6ttZz2y7V for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2022 05:34:03 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Ha+HeItJ; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Ha+HeItJ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KqjMP3cBtz2xnR for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2022 05:33:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 23THBoiH013291; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:09 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : subject : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=vDWU27AKQEo+oH1UUdtPi7S1oftQMcr2YMRcrvYvg6Y=; b=Ha+HeItJqD/hLvxIfUIm85LpIh46wsIxbzYkIoMiJxamVDtjZVGw0TVKrjMmYyREqPD5 +sgAKWm32g2m3OxTx/OmNp77x96xojUEJwOzF2L/vAQDTkrzPd+PNhmYb+sM9B4ZtVn3 E9SsCiyieZCx5Bz8YADOlP+jHc89QLxz8ZlaYilwLC7sjZuZIodoQSB+pZqbLvox7Qt4 F1YuO8SJrj9y/Vp7ut4c5z+kx/+FcKYeLtZTtrZ381oRb/rdgt7cZc/dyGCilYu9jsmB dOgyjkYyHOMSAcHEXWn27maYbfgSxNv9zU0aRdhH7cj2k3WK9AVhJawO409x/wKtA/AW SA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3fr27h871g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:08 +0000 Received: from m0098416.ppops.net (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 23TJDOQV028169; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:08 GMT Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3fr27h8715-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:08 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 23TJX0wP022750; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:06 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3fm9391j12-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:06 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 23TJXCnj26476904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:12 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1021342045; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2F642041; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.43.18.217]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:33:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 01:03:01 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ftrace: recordmcount: Handle sections with no non-weak symbols To: Steven Rostedt References: <126aca34935cf1c7168e17970c706e36577094e7.1651166001.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20220428184212.18fbf438@gandalf.local.home> <1651252324.js9790ngjg.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <20220429135916.47c3e623@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20220429135916.47c3e623@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: astroid/4d6b06ad (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1651257788.xtscezsfky.naveen@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 5IRCrmEecLVBqTwYK1etJSIMvr9ZJZ8s X-Proofpoint-GUID: c1YO3hElOo7wYmNNZFeFbyj3webXVoOo Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.858,Hydra:6.0.486,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-04-29_09,2022-04-28_01,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=299 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2204290103 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, Nick Desaulniers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 23:09:19 +0530 > "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: >=20 >> If I'm understanding your suggestion right: >> - we now create a new section in each object file: __mcount_loc_weak,=20 >> and capture such relocations using weak symbols there. >=20 > Yes, but it would be putting the same information it puts into __mcount_l= oc > but also add it here too. That is, it will duplicate the data. >=20 >> - we then ask the linker to put these separately between, say,=20 >> __start_mcount_loc_weak and __stop_mcount_loc_weak >=20 > Yes, but it will also go in the location between __start_mcount_loc and > __stop_mcount_loc. >=20 >> - on ftrace init, we go through entries in this range, but discard those= =20 >> that belong to functions that also have an entry between=20 >> __start_mcount_loc and __stop_mcount loc. >=20 > But we should be able to know if it was overridden or not, by seeing if > there's another function that was called. Or at least, we can validate th= em > to make sure that they are correct. >=20 >>=20 >> The primary issue I see here is that the mcount locations within the new= =20 >> weak section will end up being offsets from a different function in=20 >> vmlinux, since the linker does not create a symbol for the weak=20 >> functions that were over-ridden. >=20 > The point of this section is to know which functions in __mcount_loc may > have been overridden, as they would be found in the __mcount_loc_weak > section. And then we can do something "special" to them. I'm not sure I follow that. How are you intending to figure out which=20 functions were overridden by looking at entries in the __mcount_loc_weak=20 section? In the final vmlinux image, we only get offsets into .text for all=20 mcount locations, but no symbol information. The only hint is the fact=20 that a single kallsym symbol has multiple mcount locations within it.=20 Even then, the symbol with duplicate mcount entries won't be the=20 function that was overridden. We could do a kallsyms_lookup() on each entry and consult the=20 __mcount_loc_weak section to identify duplicates, but that looks to be=20 very expensive. Did you have a different approach in mind? >=20 >>=20 >> As an example, in the issue described in this patch set, if powerpc=20 >> starts over-riding kexec_arch_apply_relocations(), then the current weak= =20 >> implementation in kexec_file.o gets carried over to the final vmlinux,=20 >> but the instructions will instead appear under the previous function in= =20 >> kexec_file.o: crash_prepare_elf64_headers(). This function may or may=20 >> not be traced to begin with, so we won't be able to figure out if this=20 >> is valid or not. >=20 > If it was overridden, then there would be two entries for function that > overrides the weak function in the __mcount_loc section, right? One for t= he > new function, and one that was overridden. In the final vmlinux, we will have two entries: one pointing at the=20 correct function, while the other will point to some other function=20 name. So, at least from kallsym perspective, duplicate mcount entries=20 won't be for the function that was overridden, but some arbitrary=20 function that came before the weak function in the object file. > Of course this could be more > complex if the new function had been marked notrace. >=20 > I was thinking of doing this just so that we know what functions are weak > and perhaps need extra processing. >=20 > Another issue with weak functions and ftrace just came up here: >=20 > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220428095803.66c17c32@gandalf.local.home/ I noticed this just yesterday: # cat available_filter_functions | sort | uniq -d | wc -l 430 I'm fairly certain that some of those are due to weak functions -- I=20 just wasn't sure if all of those were. I suppose this will now also be a problem with ftrace_location(), given=20 that it was recently changed to look at an entire function for mcount=20 locations? Thanks, Naveen