From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Keith Packard <keithpac@amazon.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls@arm.com>, Peter Smith <Peter.Smith@arm.com>, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] ARM: call_with_stack: add unwind support Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:46:12 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmyxaPF1T0KXS9v=fp7fD7d=fDWjbzCKaEgHcW9h+D_9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3w+8iKqjhR0WgSVwP-kw7oCmUcOL6JKvDtMkpJu+jEeg@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 5:22 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:15 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Restructure the code and add the unwind annotations so that both the > > frame pointer unwinder as well as the ELF unwind info based unwinder > > will be able to follow the call stack through call_with_stack(). > > > > Note that the former cannot support GCC and Clang at the same time, as > > they use a different idiom for the prologue/epilogue. So the code uses > > the GCC idiom, adding full frame pointer based unwind support for GCC > > while preserving the existing behavior of the Clang version, which > > simply omits call_with_stack() from its call stack. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > I would like Nick to take a look at this for the clang support, he spent > some time on getting the frame pointer unwinder working with clang, > so he may have additional comments about this. > > > --- > > arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S | 44 +++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S b/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S > > index 28b0341ae786..133dffa2404a 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S > > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S > > @@ -8,25 +8,57 @@ > > > > #include <linux/linkage.h> > > #include <asm/assembler.h> > > +#include <asm/unwind.h> > > > > /* > > * void call_with_stack(void (*fn)(void *), void *arg, void *sp) > > * > > * Change the stack to that pointed at by sp, then invoke fn(arg) with > > * the new stack. > > + * > > + * The sequence below follows the APCS frame convention for frame pointer > > + * unwinding, and implements the unwinder annotations needed by the EABI > > + * unwinder. > > + */ > > + > > +#if defined(CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL) || \ > > + (defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER) && defined(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG)) Doesn't clang use r11 (fp) as the frame pointer in ARM mode? https://godbolt.org/z/1x4x99M1x Or is this what you meant by "So the best we can do here is not touch the frame pointer at all"? > > +/* > > + * Thumb-2 builds must use R7 as the frame pointer due to the way our unwind > > + * info based unwinder is constructed. > > + * > > + * The code below uses the GCC idiom for managing the frame pointer in the > > + * function prologue and epilogue, which Clang does not support. So the best we IIRC, it's only slightly different; it's just that FP points to the previous FP in clang, rather than LR; at a fixed offset. At least when looking through Doug's notes and diagrams: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210507135509.1.I5d969beafa0d7507f1e37fadaa6e4d88d428253d@changeid/ Though looking at the diagram, it looks like neither toolchain implements APCS...did I understand that correctly? There's also some documentation in https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c#n11 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/lib/backtrace-clang.S#n31 I guess I'm more so curious about this code when built with clang, both before and after this patch. Was it broken for either unwinder on ARM or THUMB2+UNWINDER_ARM? Does it regress with this patch? What's the best way to test/verify this? > > + * can do here is not touch the frame pointer at all: this will simply omit > > + * this frame when unwinding the call stack. So use R7 in this case as well, > > + * and leave R11 unmodified. > > */ > > + fpreg .req r7 TIL about `.req`: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/ARM-Directives.html This patch demonstrates the usage of quite a few of these! > > +#else > > + fpreg .req fp > > +#endif > > + > > ENTRY(call_with_stack) > > - str sp, [r2, #-4]! > > - str lr, [r2, #-4]! > > +UNWIND( .fnstart ) > > +UNWIND( .movsp ip ) > > + mov ip, sp > > + > > +UNWIND( .pad #4 ) > > +UNWIND( .save {fpreg, ip, lr} ) > > +THUMB( sub sp, #4 ) > > + push {fpreg, ip, lr ARM(, pc)} > > + > > +UNWIND( .setfp fpreg, ip, #-4 ) > > + sub fpreg, ip, #4 > > > > mov sp, r2 > > mov r2, r0 > > mov r0, r1 > > > > - badr lr, 1f > > - ret r2 > > + bl_r r2 > > > > -1: ldr lr, [sp] > > - ldr sp, [sp, #4] > > + ldmdb fpreg, {fpreg, ip, lr} > > + mov sp, ip > > ret lr > > +UNWIND( .fnend ) > > ENDPROC(call_with_stack) > > -- > > 2.30.2 > > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Keith Packard <keithpac@amazon.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls@arm.com>, Peter Smith <Peter.Smith@arm.com>, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] ARM: call_with_stack: add unwind support Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:46:12 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmyxaPF1T0KXS9v=fp7fD7d=fDWjbzCKaEgHcW9h+D_9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3w+8iKqjhR0WgSVwP-kw7oCmUcOL6JKvDtMkpJu+jEeg@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 5:22 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:15 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Restructure the code and add the unwind annotations so that both the > > frame pointer unwinder as well as the ELF unwind info based unwinder > > will be able to follow the call stack through call_with_stack(). > > > > Note that the former cannot support GCC and Clang at the same time, as > > they use a different idiom for the prologue/epilogue. So the code uses > > the GCC idiom, adding full frame pointer based unwind support for GCC > > while preserving the existing behavior of the Clang version, which > > simply omits call_with_stack() from its call stack. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > > I would like Nick to take a look at this for the clang support, he spent > some time on getting the frame pointer unwinder working with clang, > so he may have additional comments about this. > > > --- > > arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S | 44 +++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S b/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S > > index 28b0341ae786..133dffa2404a 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S > > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/call_with_stack.S > > @@ -8,25 +8,57 @@ > > > > #include <linux/linkage.h> > > #include <asm/assembler.h> > > +#include <asm/unwind.h> > > > > /* > > * void call_with_stack(void (*fn)(void *), void *arg, void *sp) > > * > > * Change the stack to that pointed at by sp, then invoke fn(arg) with > > * the new stack. > > + * > > + * The sequence below follows the APCS frame convention for frame pointer > > + * unwinding, and implements the unwinder annotations needed by the EABI > > + * unwinder. > > + */ > > + > > +#if defined(CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL) || \ > > + (defined(CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER) && defined(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG)) Doesn't clang use r11 (fp) as the frame pointer in ARM mode? https://godbolt.org/z/1x4x99M1x Or is this what you meant by "So the best we can do here is not touch the frame pointer at all"? > > +/* > > + * Thumb-2 builds must use R7 as the frame pointer due to the way our unwind > > + * info based unwinder is constructed. > > + * > > + * The code below uses the GCC idiom for managing the frame pointer in the > > + * function prologue and epilogue, which Clang does not support. So the best we IIRC, it's only slightly different; it's just that FP points to the previous FP in clang, rather than LR; at a fixed offset. At least when looking through Doug's notes and diagrams: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210507135509.1.I5d969beafa0d7507f1e37fadaa6e4d88d428253d@changeid/ Though looking at the diagram, it looks like neither toolchain implements APCS...did I understand that correctly? There's also some documentation in https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c#n11 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/lib/backtrace-clang.S#n31 I guess I'm more so curious about this code when built with clang, both before and after this patch. Was it broken for either unwinder on ARM or THUMB2+UNWINDER_ARM? Does it regress with this patch? What's the best way to test/verify this? > > + * can do here is not touch the frame pointer at all: this will simply omit > > + * this frame when unwinding the call stack. So use R7 in this case as well, > > + * and leave R11 unmodified. > > */ > > + fpreg .req r7 TIL about `.req`: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/ARM-Directives.html This patch demonstrates the usage of quite a few of these! > > +#else > > + fpreg .req fp > > +#endif > > + > > ENTRY(call_with_stack) > > - str sp, [r2, #-4]! > > - str lr, [r2, #-4]! > > +UNWIND( .fnstart ) > > +UNWIND( .movsp ip ) > > + mov ip, sp > > + > > +UNWIND( .pad #4 ) > > +UNWIND( .save {fpreg, ip, lr} ) > > +THUMB( sub sp, #4 ) > > + push {fpreg, ip, lr ARM(, pc)} > > + > > +UNWIND( .setfp fpreg, ip, #-4 ) > > + sub fpreg, ip, #4 > > > > mov sp, r2 > > mov r2, r0 > > mov r0, r1 > > > > - badr lr, 1f > > - ret r2 > > + bl_r r2 > > > > -1: ldr lr, [sp] > > - ldr sp, [sp, #4] > > + ldmdb fpreg, {fpreg, ip, lr} > > + mov sp, ip > > ret lr > > +UNWIND( .fnend ) > > ENDPROC(call_with_stack) > > -- > > 2.30.2 > > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-05 18:46 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-10-05 7:15 [PATCH v2 0/9] ARM: add support for IRQ stacks Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] ARM: remove some dead code Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:06 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] ARM: assembler: introduce bl_r and bl_m macros Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:10 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 12:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] ARM: optimize indirect call to handle_arch_irq for v7 cores Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:11 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] ARM: unwind: support unwinding across multiple stacks Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:17 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] ARM: export dump_mem() to other objects Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:15 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] ARM: unwind: dump exception stack from calling frame Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:20 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] ARM: implement IRQ stacks Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:26 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] ARM: call_with_stack: add unwind support Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:22 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-05 18:46 ` Nick Desaulniers [this message] 2021-10-05 18:46 ` Nick Desaulniers 2021-10-05 18:57 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 18:57 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] ARM: run softirqs on the per-CPU IRQ stack Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-05 12:23 ` Arnd Bergmann 2021-10-06 15:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-10-11 23:29 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] ARM: add support for IRQ stacks Keith Packard 2021-10-16 22:04 ` Linus Walleij
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAKwvOdmyxaPF1T0KXS9v=fp7fD7d=fDWjbzCKaEgHcW9h+D_9w@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=ndesaulniers@google.com \ --cc=Kristof.Beyls@arm.com \ --cc=Peter.Smith@arm.com \ --cc=ardb@kernel.org \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=dianders@chromium.org \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=keithpac@amazon.com \ --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \ --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.