Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc: Include running function as first entry in save_stack_trace() and friends

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:05:32PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

Hi!

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:05:23PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 03:54:48PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:57:30PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

It looks like GCC is happy to give us the function-entry-time FP if we use
__builtin_frame_address(1),

From the GCC manual:
     Calling this function with a nonzero argument can have
     unpredictable effects, including crashing the calling program.  As
     a result, calls that are considered unsafe are diagnosed when the
     '-Wframe-address' option is in effect.  Such calls should only be
     made in debugging situations.

It *does* warn (the warning is in -Wall btw), on both powerpc and
aarch64.  Furthermore, using this builtin causes lousy code (it forces
the use of a frame pointer, which we normally try very hard to optimise
away, for good reason).

And, that warning is not an idle warning.  Non-zero arguments to
__builtin_frame_address can crash the program.  It won't on simpler
functions, but there is no real definition of what a simpler function
*is*.  It is meant for debugging, not for production use (this is also
why no one has bothered to make it faster).

On Power it should work, but on pretty much any other arch it won't.

I understand this is true generally, and cannot be relied upon in
portable code. However as you hint here for Power, I believe that on
arm64 __builtin_frame_address(1) shouldn't crash the program due to the
way frame records work on arm64, but I'll go check with some local
compiler folk. I agree that __builtin_frame_address(2) and beyond
certainly can, e.g.  by NULL dereference and similar.

I still do not know the aarch64 ABI well enough.  If only I had time!

quoted

For context, why do you think this would work on power specifically? I
wonder if our rationale is similar.

On most 64-bit Power ABIs all stack frames are connected together as a
linked list (which is updated atomically, importantly).  This makes it
possible to always find all previous stack frames.

We have something similar on arm64, where the kernel depends on being
built with a frame pointer following the AAPCS frame pointer rules.

Every stack frame contains a "frame record" *somewhere* within that
stack frame, and the frame records are chained together as a linked
list. The frame pointer points at the most recent frame record (and this
is what __builtin_frame_address(0) returns).

The records themselves are basically:

struct record {
	struct record *next;
	unsigned long ret_addr;
};

At function call boundaries, we know that the FP is the caller's record
(or NULL for the first function), and the LR is the address the current
function should return to. Within a function with a stack frame, we can
access that function's record and the `next` field (equivalent to the FP
at the time of entry to the function) is what __builtin_frame_address(1)
should return.

quoted

Are you aware of anything in particular that breaks using
__builtin_frame_address(1) in non-portable code, or is this just a
general sentiment of this not being a supported use-case?

It is not supported, and trying to do it anyway can crash: it can use
random stack contents as pointer!  Not really "random" of course, but
where it thinks to find a pointer into the previous frame, which is not
something it can rely on (unless the ABI guarantees it somehow).

See gcc.gnu.org/PR60109 for example.

Sure; I see that being true generally (and Ramana noted that on 32-bit
arm a frame pointer wasn't mandated), but I think in this case we have a
stronger target (and configuration) specific guarantee.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Unless we can get some strong guarantees from compiler folk such that we
can guarantee a specific function acts boundary for unwinding (and
doesn't itself get split, etc), the only reliable way I can think to
solve this requires an assembly trampoline. Whatever we do is liable to
need some invasive rework.

You cannot get such a guarantee, other than not letting the compiler
see into the routine at all, like with assembler code (not inline asm,
real assembler code).

If we cannot reliably ensure this then I'm happy to go write an assembly
trampoline to snapshot the state at a function call boundary (where our
procedure call standard mandates the state of the LR, FP, and frame
records pointed to by the FP).

Is the frame pointer required?!

The arm64 Linux port mandates frame pointers for kernel code. It is
generally possible to build code without frame pointers (e.g. userspace),
but doing that for kernel code would be a bug.

quoted

This'll require reworking a reasonable
amount of code cross-architecture, so I'll need to get some more
concrete justification (e.g. examples of things that can go wrong in
practice).

Say you have a function that does dynamic stack allocation, then there
is usually no way to find the previous stack frame (without function-
specific knowledge).  So __builtin_frame_address cannot work (it knows
nothing about frames further up).

Dynamic stack allocation (alloca, or variable length automatic arrays)
is just the most common and most convenient example; it is not the only
case you have problems here.

I agree with those as general concerns, but I don't think that affects
arm64's frame records, since their location within a stack frame is
immaterial given the chaining.

quoted

quoted

The real way forward is to bite the bullet and to no longer pretend you
can do a full backtrace from just the stack contents.  You cannot.

I think what you mean here is that there's no reliable way to handle the
current/leaf function, right? If so I do agree.

No, I meant what I said.

There is the separate issue that you do not know where the return
address (etc.) is stored in a function that has not yet done a call
itself, sure.  You cannot assume anything the ABI does not tell you you
can depend on.

This is in the frame record per the AAPCS.

quoted

Beyond that I believe that arm64's frame records should be sufficient.

Do you have a simple linked list connecting all frames?

Yes.

Thanks,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel