[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210325122524.91bca1233c0c254fdc0678fc@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:25:24 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
ast@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, kernel-team@...com, yhs@...com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v4 10/12] x86/kprobes: Push a fake return address
at kretprobe_trampoline
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:26:13 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:47:41 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > I think the REGS and REGS_PARTIAL cases can also be affected by function
> > > graph tracing. So should they use the generic unwind_recover_ret_addr()
> > > instead of unwind_recover_kretprobe()?
> >
> > Yes, but I'm not sure this parameter can be applied.
> > For example, it passed "state->sp - sizeof(unsigned long)" as where the
> > return address stored address. Is that same on ftrace graph too?
>
> Stack traces on the return side of function graph tracer has never
> worked. It's on my todo list, because that's one of the requirements to
> get right if we every manage to combine kretprobe and function graph
> tracers together.
OK, then at this point let's just fix the kretprobe side.
Thanks,
>
> -- Steve
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists