[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160122174005.GA10247@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:40:06 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/33] x86/asm/bpf: Create stack frames in bpf_jit.S
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:36:14AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:18:23AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:58:04AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:18:46PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:55:31PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:44:28PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:27PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > > > > bpf_jit.S has several callable non-leaf functions which don't honor
> > > > > > > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, which can result in bad stack traces.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Create a stack frame before the call instructions when
> > > > > > > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > > > > > > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.S | 9 +++++++--
> > ...
> > > > > > > /* rsi contains offset and can be scratched */
> > > > > > > #define bpf_slow_path_common(LEN) \
> > > > > > > + lea -MAX_BPF_STACK + 32(%rbp), %rdx;\
> > > > > > > + FRAME_BEGIN; \
> > > > > > > mov %rbx, %rdi; /* arg1 == skb */ \
> > > > > > > push %r9; \
> > > > > > > push SKBDATA; \
> > > > > > > /* rsi already has offset */ \
> > > > > > > mov $LEN,%ecx; /* len */ \
> > > > > > > - lea - MAX_BPF_STACK + 32(%rbp),%rdx; \
> > > > > > > call skb_copy_bits; \
> > > > > > > test %eax,%eax; \
> > > > > > > pop SKBDATA; \
> > > > > > > - pop %r9;
> > > > > > > + pop %r9; \
> > > > > > > + FRAME_END
> > ...
> > > > > Well, but the point of these patches isn't to make the tool happy. It's
> > > > > really to make sure that runtime stack traces can be made reliable.
> > > > > Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why JIT code can't honor
> > > > > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER just like any other code.
> > > >
> > > > It can if there is no performance cost added.
> > >
> > > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER always adds a small performance cost but as you
> > > mentioned it only affects the slow path here. And hopefully we'll soon
> > > have an in-kernel DWARF unwinder on x86 so we can get rid of the need
> > > for frame pointers.
> >
> > ok. fair enough.
> > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Can I assume your ack also applies to the previous patch which adds the
> ELF annotations ("x86/asm/bpf: Annotate callable functions")?
Yes. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists