* [PATCH][RFC] x86: oprofile 32bit stack traces on 64bit kernel
@ 2008-02-05 16:20 Jason Wessel
2008-02-07 16:57 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wessel @ 2008-02-05 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lkml, phil.el; +Cc: oprofile-list
There are multiple ways to write the same code, hence the reason this
is listed as an RFC patch. I wanted to provide a working fix to
account for the case of executing 32 bit and 64 bit user space code on
a 64 bit kernel.
-----CLIP HERE-------
Allow oprofile's backtrace to work on a 32bit user space thread when
running on a 64bit kernel.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
---
arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
@@ -52,6 +52,39 @@ struct frame_head {
unsigned long ret;
} __attribute__((packed));
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && defined(CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION)
+struct frame_head32 {
+ unsigned int ebp;
+ unsigned int ret;
+} __attribute__((packed));
+
+static struct frame_head *
+dump_user_backtrace32(struct frame_head * head)
+{
+ struct frame_head32 bufhead[2];
+
+ /* Also check accessibility of one struct frame_head beyond */
+ if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, head, sizeof(bufhead)))
+ return NULL;
+ if (__copy_from_user_inatomic(bufhead, head, sizeof(bufhead)))
+ return NULL;
+ /* In a 32bit user space on a 64bit kernel the frame pointer and
+ * PC are not at the same place as in the 64 registers. This
+ * requires some casting and checks of the 32bit register values
+ * back to 64 pit pointers.
+ */
+ oprofile_add_trace(bufhead[0].ret);
+
+ /* frame pointers should strictly progress back up the stack
+ * (towards higher addresses) */
+ if (head >= (struct frame_head *)((unsigned long)bufhead[0].ebp))
+ return NULL;
+
+ return (struct frame_head *)((unsigned long)bufhead[0].ebp);
+}
+#endif
+
static struct frame_head *
dump_user_backtrace(struct frame_head * head)
{
@@ -85,7 +118,12 @@ x86_backtrace(struct pt_regs * const reg
&backtrace_ops, &depth);
return;
}
-
+#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && defined(CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION)
+ if (test_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT))
+ while (depth-- && head)
+ head = dump_user_backtrace32(head);
+ else
+#endif
while (depth-- && head)
head = dump_user_backtrace(head);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH][RFC] x86: oprofile 32bit stack traces on 64bit kernel
2008-02-05 16:20 [PATCH][RFC] x86: oprofile 32bit stack traces on 64bit kernel Jason Wessel
@ 2008-02-07 16:57 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2008-02-07 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Wessel; +Cc: lkml, phil.el, oprofile-list
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:20:52 -0600
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> There are multiple ways to write the same code, hence the reason this
> is listed as an RFC patch. I wanted to provide a working fix to
> account for the case of executing 32 bit and 64 bit user space code on
> a 64 bit kernel.
>
> -----CLIP HERE-------
>
> Allow oprofile's backtrace to work on a 32bit user space thread when
> running on a 64bit kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
looks sane; it'll be better than what is there now at least
and it's safe enough
Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-07 16:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-02-05 16:20 [PATCH][RFC] x86: oprofile 32bit stack traces on 64bit kernel Jason Wessel
2008-02-07 16:57 ` Arjan van de Ven
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox