linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] perf/probe: Search both .eh_frame and .debug

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <50399556C9727B4D88A595C8584AAB37525585E9@GSjpTKYDCembx32.service.hitachi.net>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:56:01 +0000
From:	平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI 
	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	"'Mark Wielaard'" <mjw@...hat.com>,
	Hemant Kumar <hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
	"sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] perf/probe: Search both .eh_frame and .debug_frame
 sections for probe location

From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:mjw@...hat.com]
>
>Hi Hemant,
>
>On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 07:46 +0530, Hemant Kumar wrote:
>> perf probe through debuginfo__find_probes() in util/probe-finder.c
>> checks for the functions' frame descriptions in either .eh_frame section
>> of an ELF or the .debug_frame. The check is based on whether either one
>> of these sections is present. But sometimes, it may happen that,
>> .eh_frame, even if present, may not be complete and may miss some
>> descriptions.
>
>Right. Depending on distro, toolchain defaults, arch, build flags, etc.
>CFI might be found in either .eh_frame and/or .debug_frame. To be sure
>you find the CFI covering an address you will always have to investigate
>both if available.

OK, I didn't care about that.

>
>I am not too familiar with the code so there might be a reason for
>setting and reusing the pf->cfi to do the search twice. But might it not
>be more clear to just store both pf->cfi_eh and pf->cfi_debug and then
>check both in call_probe_finder () with the dwarf_cfi_addrframe () call?
>Which is the only place I see actually using the cfi.

Right, but since call_probe_finder can be called repeatedly on same binary,
we should keep pf->cfi for caching CFI too.

>BTW. Not really related to this patch since the following was already in
>the code, and is most likely always correct anyway:
>
>> +	if (elf_section_by_name(elf, &ehdr, &shdr, ".eh_frame", NULL) &&
>> +	    shdr.sh_type == SHT_PROGBITS) {
>> +		pf->cfi = dwarf_getcfi_elf(elf);
>
>But that SHT_PROGBITS check is only necessary because of a bug in
>elfutils < 0.156. For 0.156+ dwarf_getcfi_elf () will properly return
>NULL in case you happen to be looking at a separate debug file that
>has .eh_frame as NOBITS. In theory this prevents getting the CFI if the
>file has stripped away the shdrs. Which is reasonable, there are
>probably also other things that rely on the shdrs.

Ah, I had just wanted to avoid introducing new ifdefs.

> But dwarf_getcfi_elf
>is able to also get you the CFI with just the phdrs.

Hmm, how can I make such binary? I can fix it, but we need a
testcase for that.

Thanks!

>
>Cheers,
>
>Mark