linux-kernel - Re: Concerns about SFrame viability for userspace stack walking

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAN30aBHOw16Tzdn_Z0TZKie7Fyi39bmB2PQK4LB-rjU1vn3zQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:50:42 -0700
From: Fangrui Song <maskray@...rceware.org>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Cc: Fangrui Song <maskray@...rceware.org>, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Concerns about SFrame viability for userspace stack walking

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:30 AM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:53:32PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > I've been following the SFrame discussion and wanted to share some concerns about its viability for userspace adoption, based on concrete measurements and comparison with existing compact unwind implementations in LLVM.
> >
> > **Size overhead concerns**
> >
> > Measurements on a x86-64 clang binary show that .sframe (8.87 MiB) is approximately 10% larger than the combined size of .eh_frame and .eh_frame_hdr (8.06 MiB total).
> > This is problematic because .eh_frame cannot be eliminated - it contains essential information for restoring callee-saved registers, LSDA, and personality information needed for debugging (e.g. reading local variables in a coredump) and C++ exception handling.
>
> I believe .sframe only provides a subset of the .eh_frame information, so
> can't be used for exception throwing, and you don't want to lose
> .eh_frame_hdr either because then dlopen becomes very costly and it will
> even slow down exception throwing.

Right.

> If .eh_frame is considered too large, rather than inventing a new format I'd
> suggest to work in the DWARF committee and provide further size
> optimizations for .dwarf_frame which can then be used in .eh_frame, or agree
> on .eh_frame extensions to make it smaller.
>
>         Jakub

Thanks for the suggestion.
An effective compact unwinding scheme needs to leverage ISA-specific properties.
This architecture-specific nature makes it likely fall outside the
DWARF's scope.
That said, input from the DWARF committee would certainly be valuable.