From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for function graph tracing
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 03:42:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913024218.GB12411@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59B7AED4.1070106@arm.com>
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:54:28AM +0100, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Pratyush,
>
> On 01/09/17 06:48, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> > do_task_stat() calls get_wchan(), which further does unbind_frame().
> > unbind_frame() restores frame->pc to original value in case function
> > graph tracer has modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame to hook
> > a function return. However, if function graph tracer has hit a filtered
> > function, then we can't unwind it as ftrace_push_return_trace() has
> > biased the index(frame->graph) with a 'huge negative'
> > offset(-FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH).
> >
> > Moreover, arm64 stack walker defines index(frame->graph) as unsigned
> > int, which can not compare a -ve number.
> >
> > Similar problem we can have with calling of walk_stackframe() from
> > save_stack_trace_tsk() or dump_backtrace().
> >
> > This patch fixes unwind_frame() to test the index for -ve value and
> > restore index accordingly before we can restore frame->pc.
>
> I've just spotted arm64's profile_pc, which does this:
> From arch/arm64/kernel/time.c:profile_pc():
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > frame.graph = -1; /* no task info */
> > #endif
>
> Is this another elaborate way of hitting this problem?
>
> I guess the options are skip any return-address restore in the unwinder if
> frame.graph is -1. (and profile_pc may have a bug here). Or, put
> current->curr_ret_stack in there.
>
> profile_pc() always passes tsk=NULL, so the unwinder assumes its current...
> kernel/profile.c pulls the pt_regs from a per-cpu irq_regs variable, that is
> updated by handle_IPI ... so it looks like this should always be current...
Hmmm... is profile_pc the *only* case where frame->graph isn't equal to
tsk->curr_ret_stack in unwind_frame? If so, maybe unwind_frame should just
use that, and we could kill the graph member of struct stackframe completely?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 2:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-01 5:48 [PATCH v2] arm64: fix unwind_frame() for filtered out fn for function graph tracing Pratyush Anand
2017-09-12 9:54 ` James Morse
2017-09-13 2:42 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-09-13 4:59 ` Pratyush Anand
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=20170913024218.GB12411@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=panand@redhat.com \
/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