linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 9/9] tracing: add function graph tracer support for MIPS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:22:25 +0800
From:	Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>
To:	Patrik Kluba <kpajko79@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@....gnu.org>,
	Adam Nemet <anemet@...iumnetworks.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
	Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@...glemail.com>,
	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 9/9] tracing: add function graph tracer support for
 MIPS

On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 14:37 +0100, Patrik Kluba wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > do you mean if enabling PROFILE_BEFORE_PROLOGUE, there will be some
> > problems with module support using -mlong-calls?
> >
> 
> No, there are no problems. I've tested it on friday, and function
> graph tracing was working correctly.
> I meant to say that 4.2.1 we use does not generate correct profile
> calls from kernel modules. Maybe this issue was fixed in newer
> releases, I did not check. I've applied a patch (don't remember where
> have I found that, maybe it was created by you) to our toolchain
> several months ago.

I have never sent a patch to gcc before :-) but perhaps somebody have
fixed it for us. so, the left job is hoping somebody enable
PROFILE_BEFORE_PROLOGUE for MIPS in the next version of gcc if there is
no side effect, and then we can hijack the return address of non-leaf &
leaf function directly in the same way in _mcount.

> 
> I was thinking about dynamic tracing, and I think a toolchain patch
> can be avoided completely. We only need to make difference between
> "jal _mcount" and "jalr v1"-style mcount calls when replacing them
> with "nop" instructions in the code-patching function called by
> ftrace_convert_nops(). This can be done in 2 ways:
> 1) keeping old instructions - takes extra memory, not an option
> 2) using 2 separate instructions to replace with. One of them could be
> the normal NOP instruction, which expands to "sll r0, r0, 0". For the
> other we could use "sll r0, r0, 1" but as it has already special
> meaning (SSNOP) a better candidate could be something like "sll r1,
> r1, 0". This way we can decide which instruction to patch in when
> tracing is enabled for a function, eg. when the code patcher
> encounters a "sll r0, r0, 0" it emits a function call using JAL and
> when it encounters "sll r1, r1, 0" it emits a function call using
> "JALR v1".

If only thinking about dynamic tracing, no patch for gcc needed,
-mlong-calls is enough, I have done it via a "stupid" trick, will send
the patchset out asap :-)

Regards,
	Wu Zhangjin

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/