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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282F6C433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:59:57 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C56164F59 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:59:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4C56164F59 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Drxtf3V3sz3d36 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 03:59:54 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.110.172; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=mark.rutland@arm.com; receiver=) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DrxtJ5mPQz3clq for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 03:59:34 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E108031B; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:59:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from C02TD0UTHF1T.local (unknown [10.57.53.210]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA6FF3F7D7; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:59:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:59:23 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Marco Elver Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc: Include running function as first entry in save_stack_trace() and friends Message-ID: <20210304165923.GA60457@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> References: <1802be3e-dc1a-52e0-1754-a40f0ea39658@csgroup.eu> <20210304145730.GC54534@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , LKML , broonie@kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , kasan-dev , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Linux ARM Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 04:30:34PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 15:57, Mark Rutland wrote: > > [adding Mark Brown] > > > > The bigger problem here is that skipping is dodgy to begin with, and > > this is still liable to break in some cases. One big concern is that > > (especially with LTO) we cannot guarantee the compiler will not inline > > or outline functions, causing the skipp value to be too large or too > > small. That's liable to happen to callers, and in theory (though > > unlikely in practice), portions of arch_stack_walk() or > > stack_trace_save() could get outlined too. > > > > Unless we can get some strong guarantees from compiler folk such that we > > can guarantee a specific function acts boundary for unwinding (and > > doesn't itself get split, etc), the only reliable way I can think to > > solve this requires an assembly trampoline. Whatever we do is liable to > > need some invasive rework. > > Will LTO and friends respect 'noinline'? I hope so (and suspect we'd have more problems otherwise), but I don't know whether they actually so. I suspect even with 'noinline' the compiler is permitted to outline portions of a function if it wanted to (and IIUC it could still make specialized copies in the absence of 'noclone'). > One thing I also noticed is that tail calls would also cause the stack > trace to appear somewhat incomplete (for some of my tests I've > disabled tail call optimizations). I assume you mean for a chain A->B->C where B tail-calls C, you get a trace A->C? ... or is A going missing too? > Is there a way to also mark a function non-tail-callable? I think this can be bodged using __attribute__((optimize("$OPTIONS"))) on a caller to inhibit TCO (though IIRC GCC doesn't reliably support function-local optimization options), but I don't expect there's any way to mark a callee as not being tail-callable. Accoding to the GCC documentation, GCC won't TCO noreturn functions, but obviously that's not something we can use generally. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes > But I'm also not sure if with all that we'd be guaranteed the code we > want, even though in practice it might. True! I'd just like to be on the least dodgy ground we can be. Thanks, Mark.