On 5/28/26 4:23 PM, Wang Han wrote:
The dynamic ftrace entry/exit only saved s0 (the architectural frame
pointer) when HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST was selected. The upcoming
reliable frame-pointer unwinder needs s0 to be present in
ftrace_regs unconditionally so it can use the frame pointer as the
function-graph return-address cookie regardless of FP_TEST.

Nit: A prefered commit log:

struct __arch_ftrace_regs declares s0 unconditionally, and both
ftrace_regs_get_frame_pointer() and ftrace_partial_regs() read it
unconditionally. But the SAVE_ABI_REGS / RESTORE_ABI_REGS macros in
mcount-dyn.S only stored s0 under HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST
(CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER && CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER). With
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=n the slot held whatever was on the stack before,
so any callback going through ftrace_partial_regs() saw a garbage
regs->s0. RISC-V kernels default to FRAME_POINTER=y, which is why
this has not bitten in practice.

Save and restore s0 unconditionally in the dynamic ftrace ABI register
frame. This fixes the latent garbage-s0 case, brings the dynamic ftrace
path in line with the static _mcount path (mcount.S SAVE_ABI_STATE
already saves s0 unconditionally), and matches the frame layout already
documented in the comment above SAVE_ABI_REGS. It is also a
prerequisite for the upcoming reliable unwinder, which reads
ftrace_regs_get_frame_pointer(fregs) directly.

Save and restore s0 unconditionally in the dynamic ftrace ABI register
frame. This fixes the latent garbage-s0 case, brings the dynamic ftrace
path in line with the static _mcount path (mcount.S SAVE_ABI_STATE
already saves s0 unconditionally), and matches the frame layout already
documented in the comment above SAVE_ABI_REGS. It is also a
prerequisite for the upcoming reliable unwinder, which reads
ftrace_regs_get_frame_pointer(fregs) directly.

The cost is one extra REG_S/REG_L pair per traced call, negligible
compared to the overall ftrace cost; the existing FREGS_SIZE_ON_STACK
already reserved the slot, so no extra stack space is used.

Reviewed-by: Shuai Xue <[email protected]>

Thanks.
Shuai

Reply via email to