Re: [PATCH 3/8] arm64: kprobes: Record frame pointer with kretprobe instance

From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@linux.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] arm64: kprobes: Record frame pointer with kretprobe instance
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:50:39 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211014225039.b96ff7b7fa86f340ceb50192@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211014102702.GB13770@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:27:02 +0100
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:01:55PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:13:32 +0100
> > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 05:04:05PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:01:39 +0100
> > > > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:28:39PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > > > Record the frame pointer instead of stack address with kretprobe
> > > > > > instance as the identifier on the instance list.
> > > > > > Since arm64 always enable CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, we can use the
> > > > > > actual frame pointer (x29).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just to check, why do we need to use the FP rather than SP? It wasn't
> > > > > clear to me if that's necessary later in the series, or if I'm missing
> > > > > something here.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, this is for finding correct return address from the per-task
> > > > kretprobe instruction list (suppose it as a shadow stack) when it will
> > > > be searched in stack-backtracing. At that point, the framepointer will
> > > > be a reliable key.
> > > 
> > > Sure, my question was more "why isn't the SP a reliable key?", because both
> > > the SP and FP should be balanced at function-entry and function-return
> > > time. I'm asking because I think I'm missing a subtlety.
> > 
> > Ah, because SP is not used while unwinding frame. For the kretprobe,
> > either FP or SP is OK. But for the stacktrace.c, I can not use SP
> > and is easy to change to use FP. :)
> 
> Ah, so this is just so that stacktrace can match the address. For
> clarity, would you be happy to add a sentence to the commit message like:
> 
> | This will allow the stacktrace code to find the original return
> | address from the FP alone.

Yes, I'm happy to update the changelog :)

Thanks!

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>