On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:39 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > This modification leads to a hard to solve problem in the kernel > > function graph tracer which assumes that the stack looks like: > > > > return address > > saved ebp > > Umm. But it still does, doesn't it? That > > pushl -0x4(%edi) > push %ebp > > should do it - the "-0x4(%edi)" thing seems to be trying to reload the > return address. No?
Yes that is what it is doing. The problem we have is that it is putting into the frame pointer a "copy" of the return address, and not the actual pointer. Which is fine for the function tracer, but breaks the function graph tracer (which is a much more powerful tracer). Technically, this is all that mcount must have. And yes, we are making an assumption that the return address in the frame pointer is the one that will be used to leave the function. But the reason for making this copy just seems to be all messed up. I don't know if the ABI says anything about the return address in the frame pointer must be the actual return address. But it would be nice if the gcc folks would let us guarantee that it is. -- Steve
