[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210617192608.4nt6sdass6gw5ehl@treble>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:26:08 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v7 09/13] kprobes: Setup instruction pointer in
__kretprobe_trampoline_handler
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:31:03AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:22 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:45:41AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > > > I know I suggested this patch, but I believe it would only be useful in
> > > > > > > combination with the use of UNWIND_HINT_REGS in SAVE_REGS_STRING. But I
> > > > > > > think that would be tricky to pull off correctly. Instead, we have
> > > > > > > UNWIND_HINT_FUNC, which is working fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I'd suggest dropping this patch, as the unwinder isn't actually
> > > > > > > reading regs->ip after all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... and I guess this means patches 6-8 are no longer necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I also confirmed that dropping those patche does not make any change
> > > > > on the stacktrace.
> > > > > Let me update the series without those.
> > > >
> > > > Oops, Andrii, can you also test the kernel without this patch?
> > > > (you don't need to drop patch 6-8)
> > >
> > > Hi Masami,
> > >
> > > Dropping this patch and leaving all the other in place breaks stack
> > > traces from kretprobes for BPF. I double checked with and without this
> > > patch. Without this patch we are back to having broken stack traces. I
> > > see either
> > >
> > > kretprobe_trampoline+0x0
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > ftrace_trampoline+0xc8
> > > kretprobe_trampoline+0x0
Do the stack traces end there? Or do they continue normally after that?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists