| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:55:32 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@....com>,
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>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.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>,
Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijkstra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND WITH CCs v3 4/4] perf tools: determine if LR is
the return address
Em Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 10:54:03AM +0200, James Clark escreveu:
> I've tested this patchset on a few different applications and have seen it significantly improve
> quality of frame pointer stacks on aarch64. For example with GDB 10 and default build options,
> 'bfd_calc_gnu_debuglink_crc32' is a leaf function, and its caller 'gdb_bfd_crc' is ommitted,
> but with the patchset it is included. I've also confirmed that this is correct from looking at
> the source code.
>
> Before:
>
> # Children Self Command Shared Object Symbol
> # ........ ........ ............... .......................... ...........
> #
> 34.55% 0.00% gdb-100 gdb-100 [.] _start
> 0.78%
> _start
> __libc_start_main
> main
> gdb_main
> captured_command_loop
> gdb_do_one_event
> check_async_event_handlers
> fetch_inferior_event
> inferior_event_handler
> do_all_inferior_continuations
> attach_post_wait
> post_create_inferior
> svr4_solib_create_inferior_hook
> solib_add
> solib_read_symbols
> symbol_file_add_with_addrs
> read_symbols
> elf_symfile_read
> find_separate_debug_file_by_debuglink[abi:cxx11]
> find_separate_debug_file
> separate_debug_file_exists
> gdb_bfd_crc
> bfd_calc_gnu_debuglink_crc32
>
> After:
>
> # Children Self Command Shared Object Symbol
> # ........ ........ ............... .......................... ...........
> #
> 34.55% 0.00% gdb-100 gdb-100 [.] _start
> 0.78%
> _start
> __libc_start_main
> main
> gdb_main
> captured_command_loop
> gdb_do_one_event
> check_async_event_handlers
> fetch_inferior_event
> inferior_event_handler
> do_all_inferior_continuations
> attach_post_wait
> post_create_inferior
> svr4_solib_create_inferior_hook
> solib_add
> solib_read_symbols
> symbol_file_add_with_addrs
> read_symbols
> elf_symfile_read
> find_separate_debug_file_by_debuglink[abi:cxx11]
> find_separate_debug_file
> separate_debug_file_exists
> get_file_crc <--------------------- leaf frame caller added
> bfd_calc_gnu_debuglink_crc32
>
> There is a question about whether the overhead of recording all the registers is acceptable, for
> filesize and time. We could make it a manual step, at the cost of not showing better frame pointer
> stacks by default.
Can someone quantify this, i.e. how much space per perf.data for a
typical scenario? But anyway, I'm applying it as is now, we can change
it if needed, its not like files with the extra registers won't be
valid if/when we decide not to collect it by default in the future.
If we decide to make this selectable, we should have it as a .perfconfig
knob as well, so that one can set it and change the default, etc.
- Arnaldo
> Tested-by: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
>
> On 04/03/2021 18:32, 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()
> > {
> > for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
> > f2();
> > }
> >
> > int main (void)
> > {
> > f1();
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > with the following compilation flags:
> > gcc -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-inline -O2
> >
> > 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
> >
> > After this change, perf report correctly shows f1() calling f2(),
> > even though it was missing from the frame pointer unwind:
> >
> > ./perf report
> >
> > 0xffffea52f361
> > _start
> > __libc_start_main
> > main
> > f1
> > f2
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@....com>
> > Cc: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>
> > Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> > Cc: Al Grant <al.grant@....com>
> > Cc: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
> > Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijkstra@....com>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/util/Build | 1 +
> > .../util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
> > .../util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h | 7 +++
> > tools/perf/util/machine.c | 9 ++--
> > 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/Build b/tools/perf/util/Build
> > index 188521f34347..3b82cb992bce 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/Build
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/Build
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > +perf-y += arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.o
> > perf-y += annotate.o
> > perf-y += block-info.o
> > perf-y += block-range.o
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c b/tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..964efd08e72e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include "../arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h"
> > +#include "arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h"
> > +#include "event.h"
> > +#include "arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h"
> > +#include "callchain.h"
> > +#include "unwind.h"
> > +
> > +struct entries {
> > + u64 stack[2];
> > + size_t length;
> > +};
> > +
> > +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->length++] = entry->ip;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + struct entries entries = {{0, 0}, 0};
> > +
> > + if (!get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(sample))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + ret = unwind__get_entries(add_entry, &entries, thread, sample, 2);
> > +
> > + if (ret || entries.length != 2)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + return callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLER ?
> > + entries.stack[0] : entries.stack[1];
> > +}
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h b/tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..16dc03fa9abe
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +#ifndef __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H
> > +#define __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H
> > +
> > +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread);
> > +
> > +#endif /* __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H */
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > index 7f03ffa016b0..dfb72dbc0e2d 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> > #include "bpf-event.h"
> > #include <internal/lib.h> // page_size
> > #include "cgroup.h"
> > +#include "arm-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h"
> >
> > #include <linux/ctype.h>
> > #include <symbol/kallsyms.h>
> > @@ -2671,10 +2672,12 @@ static int find_prev_cpumode(struct ip_callchain *chain, struct thread *thread,
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > -static u64 get_leaf_frame_caller(struct perf_sample *sample __maybe_unused,
> > - struct thread *thread __maybe_unused)
> > +static u64 get_leaf_frame_caller(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread)
> > {
> > - return 0;
> > + if (strncmp(thread->maps->machine->env->arch, "aarch64", 7) == 0)
> > + return get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(sample, thread);
> > + else
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int thread__resolve_callchain_sample(struct thread *thread,
> >
--
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists