On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:00:19AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:57:51AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:39:01AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:19:35PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.hu...@unisoc.com>
> > > >
> > > > In some cases, the instruction of "bl foo1" will be the last one of the
> > > > foo2[1], which will cause the lr be the first instruction of the
> > > > adjacent
> > > > foo3[2]. Hence, the backtrace will show the weird result as bellow[3].
> > > > The patch will fix it by miner 4 of the lr when dump_backtrace
> > >
> > > This has come up in the past (and a similar patch has been applied, then
> > > reverted).
> > >
> > > In general, we don't know that a function call was made via BL, and
> > > therefore
> > > cannot know that LR - 4 is the address of the caller. The caller could
> > > set up
> > > the LR as it likes, then B or BR to the callee, and depending on how the
> > > basic
> > > blocks get laid out in memory, LR - 4 might point at something completely
> > > different.
> > >
> > > More ideally, the compiler wouldn't end a function with a BL. When does
> > > that
> > > happen, and is there some way we could arrange for that to not happen?
> > > e.g.
> > > somehow pad a NOP after the BL.
> >
> > It's a consequence of having __noreturn isn't it? __noreturn frees the
> > compiler from the burden of having to produce a valid return stack... so
> > it doesn't and unwinding becomes hard.
>
> In that case, the compiler could equally just use B rather than BL,
> which this patch doesn't solve.
>
> The documentation for the GCC noreturn attribute [1] says:
>
> | In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to noreturn
> | functions into tail calls.
>
> ... so clearly it's not intended to mess up backtracing.
I guess that explains why the compiler chooses BL over B (since B would
be a tail call).
> IIUC we mostly use noreturn to prevent warings about uninitialised
> variables and such after a call to a noreturn function. I think
> optimization is a secondary concern.
>
> We could ask the GCC folk if they can ensure that a noreturn function
> call leave thes LR pointing into the caller, e.g. by padding with a NOP:
>
> BL <noreturn function>
> NOP
>
> That seems cheap enough, and would keep backtraces reliable.
It might be worth discussing. One related question though... is there
any other case there the symbol name other than __noreturn where the
symbol can change between LR and LR-1?
If not can't we just switch over to %pB which is designed for this case
(and in case you ask: no... I didn't know about %pB until this morning
when I started trying to implement the heuristic it uses by hand and
then discovering it by accident).
Something like:
>From 70a2c9ffc962a650ff894d40b775f8310190bf86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:59:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Use %pB to print backtrace symbols
Currently arm64 uses %pS to print backtrace symbols but %pB (which takes
into consideration the effect of compiler optimisations which may occur
when tail-calls are used and marked with the noreturn GCC attribute)
is a better alternative.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index 5f4d9acb32f5..ea571d3a1373 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ int show_unhandled_signals = 0;
static void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where)
{
- printk(" %pS\n", (void *)where);
+ printk(" %pB\n", (void *)where);
}
static void __dump_instr(const char *lvl, struct pt_regs *regs)
--
2.19.1
