[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220914173425.GZ25951@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:34:25 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Objtool toolchain proposal: -fannotate-{jump-table,noreturn}
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 04:55:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 02:28:26PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Don't mix DWARF debug info with DWARF-based unwinding info, the latter
> > doesn't imply the former. Out of interest: how does ORC get around the
> > need for CFI annotations (or equivalents to restore registers) and what
>
> Objtool 'interprets' the stackops. So it follows the call-graph and is
> an interpreter for all instructions that modify the stack. Doing that it
> konws what the stackframe is at 'most' places.
To get correct backtraces on e.g. PowerPC you need to emulate many of
the integer insns. That is why GCC enables -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
by default for us.
The same is true for s390, aarch64, and x86 (unless 32-bit w/ frame
pointer).
The problem is that you do not know how to access anything on the stack,
whether in the current frame or in a previous frame, from a random point
in the program. GDB has many heuristics for this, and it still does not
get it right in all cases.
> > makes it fast? I want faster unwinding for DWARF as well, when there's
> > feature parity :-) Maybe something can be learned for integration into
> > dwarf-unwind.
>
> I think we have some details here:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/x86/orc-unwinder.html
It is faster because it does a whole lot less. Is that still enough?
It's not clear (to me) what exact information it wants to provide :-(
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists