[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8eb70db4-92a2-95a2-075c-f26690aab3ed@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:57:39 +0000
From: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: implement ftrace with regs
Hi Torsten,
On 04/01/2019 14:10, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
> of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
> saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
> to ftrace, does not clobber the value. Ftrace will then generate the
> standard stack frames.
>
> Note that patchable-function-entry in GCC disables IPA-RA, which means
> ABI register calling conventions are obeyed *and* scratch registers
> such as x9 are available.
>
> Introduce and handle an ftrace_regs_trampoline for module PLTs, right
> after ftrace_trampoline, and double the size of this special section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
>
I wanted to test this patch (and try to benchmark having the "mov x9,
x30" always present in function prelude vs having two nops), but I
cannot get this patch to apply (despite having a version including both
commits below).
Could you provide a git branch from which I could try to rebase the
patch? (Or a new version of the series)
> ---
>
> This patch applies on 4.20 with the additional changes
> bdb85cd1d20669dfae813555dddb745ad09323ba
> (arm64/module: switch to ADRP/ADD sequences for PLT entries)
> and
> 7dc48bf96aa0fc8aa5b38cc3e5c36ac03171e680
> (arm64: ftrace: always pass instrumented pc in x0)
> along with their respective series, or alternatively on Linus' master,
> which already has these.
>
> changes since v5:
>
> * fix mentioned pc in x0 to hold the start address of the call site,
> not the return address or the branch address.
> This resolves the problem found by Amit.
>
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2
> arch/arm64/Makefile | 4 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 1
> arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h | 13 +++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/module.h | 3
> arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 6 -
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> arch/arm64/kernel/module-plts.c | 3
> arch/arm64/kernel/module.c | 2
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile | 3
> include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 1
> include/linux/compiler_types.h | 4 +
> 13 files changed, 262 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
[...]
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
[...]
> @@ -122,6 +124,7 @@ skip_ftrace_call: // }
> ENDPROC(_mcount)
>
> #else /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE */
> +#ifndef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> /*
> * _mcount() is used to build the kernel with -pg option, but all the branch
> * instructions to _mcount() are replaced to NOP initially at kernel start up,
> @@ -159,6 +162,124 @@ GLOBAL(ftrace_graph_call) // ftrace_gra
>
> mcount_exit
> ENDPROC(ftrace_caller)
> +#else /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS */
> +
> +/*
> + * Since no -pg or similar compiler flag is used, there should really be
> + * no reference to _mcount; so do not define one. Only some value for
> + * MCOUNT_ADDR is needed for comparison. Let it point here to have some
> + * sort of magic value that can be recognised when debugging.
> + */
> +GLOBAL(_mcount)
> + ret /* make it differ from regs caller */
There's something I can't figure out. Since there are no callers to
_mcount, how does the ftrace core builds up its record of patchable
functions?
I don't understand fully the core ftrace code but I've got the
impression that without this record of struct dyn_ftrace, ftrace cannot
patch in calls to tracers in the future.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
--
Julien Thierry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists