[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250924105353.840865-1-yangfeng59949@163.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 18:53:53 +0800
From: Feng Yang <yangfeng59949@....com>
To: mhiramat@...nel.org
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
andrii@...nel.org,
ast@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net,
eddyz87@...il.com,
haoluo@...gle.com,
john.fastabend@...il.com,
jolsa@...nel.org,
kpsingh@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev,
sdf@...ichev.me,
song@...nel.org,
yangfeng59949@....com,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [BUG] Failed to obtain stack trace via bpf_get_stackid on ARM64 architecture
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 17:04:16 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > After testing, it was found that the stack could not be obtained because user_mode(regs) returned 1.
> > Referring to the arch_ftrace_fill_perf_regs function in your email
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/173518997908.391279.15910334347345106424.stgit@devnote2/),
> > I made the following modification: by setting the value of pstate, the stack can now be obtained successfully.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > index 058a99aa44bd..f2814175e958 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > @@ -159,11 +159,13 @@ ftrace_partial_regs(const struct ftrace_regs *fregs, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > struct __arch_ftrace_regs *afregs = arch_ftrace_regs(fregs);
> >
> > memcpy(regs->regs, afregs->regs, sizeof(afregs->regs));
> > regs->sp = afregs->sp;
> > regs->pc = afregs->pc;
> > regs->regs[29] = afregs->fp;
> > regs->regs[30] = afregs->lr;
> > + regs->pstate = PSR_MODE_EL1h;
>
> Good catch!
Should I submit this patch, or will you carry out a more complete fix?
> > By the way, during my testing, I also noticed that when executing bpf_get_stackid via kprobes or tracepoints,
> > the command bpftrace -e 'kprobe:bpf_get_stackid {printf("bpf_get_stackid\n");}' produces no output.
>
> I think this is because the bpf_get_stackid is a kind of recursive
> event from kprobes. Kprobe handler can not be reentered.
>
> > However, it does output something when bpf_get_stackid is invoked via uprobes.
> > This phenomenon also occurs on the x86 architecture, could this be a bug as well?
>
> Maybe if bpf_get_stackid() is kicked from uprobes, it is not recursive
> call from kprobes, so it works.
>
> So it is expected behavior, not a bug. Sorry for confusion.
>
>
> Thank you,
Thank you very much for your explanation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists