Re: [PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe()

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

On 11/30/21 9:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

quoted

From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <redacted>

Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
unwind function a consumer needs to call.

quoted

quoted

@@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
 
 static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
-				    struct stackframe *frame,
+				    unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
 				    bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
 {
+	struct stackframe frame;
+
+	start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
+
 	while (1) {
 		int ret;
 
-		if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
+		if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
 			break;
-		ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
+		ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			break;
 	}

@@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
 			      void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
 			      struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	struct stackframe frame;
-
-	if (regs)
-		start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
-	else if (task == current)
-		start_backtrace(&frame,
-				(unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
-				(unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
-	else
-		start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
-				thread_saved_pc(task));
-
-	walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
+	unsigned long fp, pc;
+
+	if (regs) {
+		fp = regs->regs[29];
+		pc = regs->pc;
+	} else if (task == current) {
+		/* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
+		fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
+		pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
+	} else {
+		/* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
+		fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
+		pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
+	}
+	walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);

I'd prefer to leave this as-is. The new and old structure are largely
equivalent, so we haven't made this any simpler, but we have added more
arguments to walk_stackframe().

This is just to simplify things when we eventually add arch_stack_walk_reliable().
That is all. All of the unwinding is done by a single unwinding function and
there are two consumers of that unwinding function - arch_stack_walk() and
arch_stack_walk_reliable().

I understand the theory, but I don't think that moving the start_backtrace()
call actually simplifies this in a meaningful way, and I think it'll make it
harder for us to make more meaningful simplifications later on.

As of patch 4 of this series, we'll have:

| noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
| 				      void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
| 				      struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
| 	unsigned long fp, pc;
| 
| 	if (regs) {
| 		fp = regs->regs[29];
| 		pc = regs->pc;
| 	} else if (task == current) {
| 		/* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
| 		fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
| 		pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
| 	} else {
| 		/* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
| 		fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
| 		pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
| 	}
| 	walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
| }
| 
| noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
|                                              void *cookie,
|                                              struct task_struct *task)
| {
| 	unsigned long fp, pc;
| 
| 	if (task == current) {
| 		/* Skip arch_stack_walk_reliable() in the stack trace. */
| 		fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
| 		pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
| 	} else {
| 		/* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
| 		fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
| 		pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
| 	}
| 	if (unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_fn, cookie))
| 		return 0;
| 	return -EINVAL;
| }

Which I do not think is substantially simpler than the naive extrapolation from
what we currently have, e.g.

| noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
| 				      void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
| 				      struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
|	struct stackframe frame;
| 
| 	if (regs) {
|		unwind_init(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc)
| 	} else if (task == current) {
|		unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
|			    __builtin_return_address(0));
| 	} else {
|		unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
|			    thread_saved_pc(task);
| 	}
| 	walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
| }
| 
| noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
|                                              void *cookie,
|                                              struct task_struct *task)
| {
|	struct stackframe frame;
| 
| 	if (task == current) {
|		unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
|			    __builtin_return_address(0));
| 	} else {
|		unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
|			    thread_saved_pc(task);
| 	}
| 	if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
| 		return 0;
| 	return -EINVAL;
| }

Further, I think we can factor this in a different way to reduce the
duplication:

| /*
|  * TODO: document requirements here
|  */
| static inline void unwind_init_from_current_regs(struct stackframe *frame,
| 						 struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
| 	unwind_init(frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
| }
| 
| /*
|  * TODO: document requirements here
|  */
| static inline void unwind_init_from_blocked_task(struct stackframe *frame,
| 						 struct task_struct *tsk)
| {
| 	unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
| 		    thread_saved_pc(task));
| }
| 
| /*
|  * TODO: document requirements here
|  *
|  * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
|  * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
|  */
| static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct stackframe *frame)
| {
| 	unwind_init(frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
| 		    __builtin_return_address(0));
| }
|
| noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
| 				      void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
| 				      struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
|	struct stackframe frame;
| 
| 	if (regs)
|		unwind_init_current_regs(&frame, regs);
|	else if (task == current)
|		unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
|	else
|		unwind_init_blocked_task(&frame, task);
|
|	unwind(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
| }
|
| noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
|                                              void *cookie,
|                                              struct task_struct *task)
| {
|	struct stackframe frame;
| 
| 	if (task == current)
|		unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
| 	else
|		unwind_init_from_blocked_task(&frame, task);
|
| 	if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
| 		return 0;
| 	return -EINVAL;
| }

... which minimizes the duplication and allows us to add specialized
initialization for each case if necessary, which I believe we will need in
future to make unwinding across exception boundaries (such as when starting
with regs) more useful.

Thanks,
Mark.

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