[PATCH] arm: Add unwinding annotations for 64bit division functions
From: Jon Medhurst Tixy <hidden>
Date: 2011-09-22 13:19:48
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, lkml
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:00 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
The unwinding fix should be simple (I haven't tested it yet): 8<----------------------------- ARM: Ignore the unwinding information for the first instruction in a function From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> When backtracing from the first instruction of a function, the prologue has not been executed and the unwinding information is not valid. This patch checks for this case and just assumes that the return address is in LR. Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c index d2cb0b3..946face 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c@@ -293,6 +293,16 @@ int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame) return -URC_FAILURE; } + /* + * Check for backtrace on the first instruction of a function. The + * prologue has not been executed yet and the unwinding information is + * not valid. Assume that the return address is in LR. + */ + if (idx.addr == frame->pc) { + frame->pc = frame->lr; + return URC_OK; + } + ctrl.vrs[FP] = frame->fp; ctrl.vrs[SP] = frame->sp; ctrl.vrs[LR] = frame->lr;
I've never looked at the unwinding code before but the one comment I would make is: does the patch work with Thumb code? I.e. does bit zero of idx.addr, frame->pc or frame->lr ever get set to indicate Thumb state? And if so, they had better all get set otherwise it won't work :-) -- Tixy