From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: stack validation warning on lttng-modules bytecode interpreter
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <734452688.38065.1466018019445.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160615181817.vvnf66z6cpwcraq7@treble>
----- On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Josh Poimboeuf jpoimboe@redhat.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:55:16PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> I notice that with gcc 6.1.1, kernel 4.6, with
>> CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y, building lttng-modules master
>> at commit 6c09dd94 gives this warning:
>>
>> lttng-modules/lttng-filter-interpreter.o: warning: objtool:
>> lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode()+0x58: sibling call from callable instruction
>> with changed frame pointer
>>
>> this object implements a bytecode interpreter using an explicit
>> jump table (see
>> https://github.com/lttng/lttng-modules/blob/master/lttng-filter-interpreter.c)
>>
>> If I define "INTERPRETER_USE_SWITCH" at the top of the file,
>> thus using the switch-case fallback implementation, the
>> warning vanishes.
>>
>> We use an explicit jump table rather than a switch case whenever
>> possible for performance reasons.
>>
>> I notice that tools/objtool/builtin-check.c needs to be aware of
>> switch-cases transformed into jump tables by the compiler. Are
>> explicit jump tables supported by the stack validator ? Do we
>> need to add annotation to our code ?
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> Unfortunately objtool doesn't know how to validate this type of jump
> table. So to avoid the warning you'll need to add an annotation to tell
> objtool to ignore it:
>
> STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode);
>
> We had to annotate __bpf_prog_run() in the kernel for the same reason.
Thanks for the tip! Unfortunately it does not seem to work.
objdump -t lttng/lttng-filter-interpreter.o output gives:
0000000000000000 l d __func_stack_frame_non_standard 0000000000000000 __func_stack_frame_non_standard
0000000000000000 l O __func_stack_frame_non_standard 0000000000000008 __func_stack_frame_non_standard_lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode
Running objtool check (built in O0) in gdb on lttng-filter-interpreter.o
built with the STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD define, it appears that the
following function:
static bool ignore_func(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func)
{
struct rela *rela;
struct instruction *insn;
/* check for STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD */
if (file->whitelist && file->whitelist->rela)
list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list)
if (rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
rela->addend == func->offset)
return true;
/* check if it has a context switching instruction */
func_for_each_insn(file, func, insn)
if (insn->type == INSN_CONTEXT_SWITCH)
return true;
return false;
}
For lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode, while in the first list
iteration:
(gdb) print rela->sym->sec
$18 = (struct section *) 0x7ffff7e20010
(gdb) print func->sec
$19 = (struct section *) 0x7ffff7e20010
But
(gdb) print rela->addend
$20 = 0
(gdb) print func->offset
$21 = 928
So for some reason it never match the ignore_func.
This happens both when I build lttng-modules as a kernel module,
and when I build it into the kernel image.
Any idea why ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> --
> Josh
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-15 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-15 16:55 stack validation warning on lttng-modules bytecode interpreter Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-06-15 18:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-06-15 19:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2016-06-15 19:38 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-06-15 20:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-06-15 20:24 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-06-15 20:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2016-06-15 20:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=734452688.38065.1466018019445.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
/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