[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201020100352.GA48360@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:03:52 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:14:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Mark B's reply dropped this, but the next paragraph covered that:
>
> | I was planning to send a mail once I've finished writing a test, but
> | IIUC there are some windows where ftrace/kretprobes
> | detection/repainting may not work, e.g. if preempted after
> | ftrace_return_to_handler() decrements curr_ret_stack, but before the
> | arch trampoline asm restores the original return addr. So we might
> | need something like an in_return_trampoline() to detect and report
> | that reliably.
>
> ... so e.g. for a callchain A->B->C, where C is instrumented there are
> windows where B might be missing from the trace, but the trace is
> reported as reliable.
I'd missed a couple of details, and I think I see how each existing
architecture prevents this case now.
Josh, just to confirm the x86 case, am I right in thinking that the ORC
unwinder will refuse to unwind from the return_to_handler and
kretprobe_trampoline asm? IIRC objtool shouldn't build unwind info for
those as return_to_handler is marked with SYM_CODE_{START,END}() and
kretprobe_trampoline is marked with STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD().
Both powerpc and s390 refuse to reliably unwind through exceptions, so
they can rely on function call boundaries to keep the callchain in a
sane state.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists