linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf tools: determine if LR is the return address

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, 24 Jan 2021 01:05:26 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Al Grant <al.grant@....com>, James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijkstra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf tools: determine if LR is the return address

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 04:18:54PM +0000, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> On arm64 and frame pointer mode (e.g: perf record --callgraph fp),
> use dwarf unwind info to check if the link register is the return
> address in order to inject it to the frame pointer stack.
> 
> Write the following application:
> 
> 	int a = 10;
> 
> 	void f2(void)
> 	{
> 		for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
> 			a *= a;
> 	}
> 
> 	void f1()
> 	{
> 		f2();
> 	}
> 
> 	int main (void)
> 	{
> 		f1();
> 		return 0;
> 	}
> 
> with the following compilation flags:
> 	gcc -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-inline -O1
> 
> The compiler omits the frame pointer for f2 on arm. This is a problem
> with any leaf call, for example an application with many different
> calls to malloc() would always omit the calling frame, even if it
> can be determined.
> 
> 	./perf record --call-graph fp ./a.out
> 	./perf report
> 
> currently gives the following stack:
> 
> 0xffffea52f361
> _start
> __libc_start_main
> main
> f2

reproduced on x86 as well

> +static bool get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(struct perf_sample *sample)
> +{
> +	return callchain_param.record_mode != CALLCHAIN_FP || !sample->user_regs.regs
> +		|| sample->user_regs.mask != PERF_REGS_MASK;
> +}
> +
> +static int add_entry(struct unwind_entry *entry, void *arg)
> +{
> +	struct entries *entries = arg;
> +
> +	entries->stack[entries->i++] = entry->ip;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread)
> +{
> +	u64 leaf_frame;
> +	struct entries entries = {{0, 0}, 0};
> +
> +	if (get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(sample))

the name suggest you'd want to continue if it's true

> +		return 0;
> +
> +	unwind__get_entries(add_entry, &entries, thread, sample, 2);

I'm scratching my head how this unwinds anything, you enabled just
registers, not the stack right? so the unwind code would do just
IP -> LR + 1 shift?

thanks,
jirka

> +	leaf_frame = callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLER ?
> +		entries.stack[0] : entries.stack[1];
> +
> +	if (leaf_frame + 1 == sample->user_regs.regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_LR])
> +		return sample->user_regs.regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_LR];
> +	return 0;
> +}

SNIP