[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C652445D-1B84-4146-A2EA-DB820100BA78@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:16:09 -0700
From: hpa@...or.com
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option
On May 22, 2017 10:49:06 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/22/17 04:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> \>>
>> >> This construct might be useful for other arches, which is why I
>called
>> >> it "FP" instead of "BP". But then I ruined that with the last 3
>:-)
>> >
>> > Please call it BP - 'FP' can easily be read as floating-point,
>making it all
>> > super-confusing. We should use canonical x86 register names and
>ordering - even
>> > if not all registers are used straight away.
>> >
>>
>> Seriously, I suspect that at the end of the day we will have
>reinvented
>> DWARF.
>
>Absolutely - the main difference is:
>
>- the debug-info implementation is _internal_ to the kernel so it can
>be fixed
>instead of "oh, wait 2 years for the toolchain to fix this particular
>bug, work
>it around in the kernel meanwhile" kind of crazy flow and dependencies.
>I.e.
>the debug-info generation and parsing code is both part of the kernel
>Git tree
> and can be iterated (and fixed) at once with.
>
>- the debug-info is auto-generated for assembly as well, leaving
>assembly code
> maintainable.
>
>- the debug-info has a sane data structure designed for robustness and
> compactness
>
>So even if it's a subset of the existing complexity of dwarf et al we
>are still
>literally infinitely better off with this model.
>
>Thanks,
>
> Ingo
This assumes that it actually ends up being feasible for objtool to do so.
It is worth noting that using DWARF for unwinding vs auto-generating the unwind information are independent issues.
Another option is to use (or postprocess) the compiler-generated DWARF for C modules and pursue autogeneration only for assembly modules, which ought to be a much easier problem and is less dependent on discovering new compiler-generated patterns.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists