* Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support @ 2022-04-14 21:33 Nick Desaulniers 2022-04-20 16:02 ` Jose E. Marchesi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2022-04-14 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Männich, Giuliano Procida Cc: Jose E. Marchesi, clang-built-linux Hi Matthias and Giuliano, Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-04-14 21:33 Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support Nick Desaulniers @ 2022-04-20 16:02 ` Jose E. Marchesi [not found] ` <CAGvU0H=sjwsWEmq1R7LKHiPjB3aBkzQ_qJqXDxhT_rFJShgVFg@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Jose E. Marchesi @ 2022-04-20 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Matthias Männich, Giuliano Procida, Jose E. Marchesi, clang-built-linux, Dodji Seketeli, guillermo.e.martinez [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail including kernel support.] > Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > > Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAGvU0H=sjwsWEmq1R7LKHiPjB3aBkzQ_qJqXDxhT_rFJShgVFg@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support [not found] ` <CAGvU0H=sjwsWEmq1R7LKHiPjB3aBkzQ_qJqXDxhT_rFJShgVFg@mail.gmail.com> @ 2022-05-07 2:15 ` Guillermo E. Martinez 2022-06-20 13:42 ` Matthias Männich 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Guillermo E. Martinez @ 2022-05-07 2:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Giuliano Procida, Matthias Männich Cc: Nick Desaulniers, Dodji Seketeli, elena.zannoni, clang-built-linux Hello guys, On our side we are working on: * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with libabigail tools. * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure provides more details about it. Thanks for your comments, Guillermo On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: > Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. > > That sounds quite interesting. > > Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and > what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). > > On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two > buckets: > > 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full > DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for > HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same > sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO > 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond > just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, > macros and more > > Giuliano. > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > > [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, > > and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail > > including kernel support.] > > > > > Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > > > Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > > > Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > > > this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > > > > > > Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > > > Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > > > of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-05-07 2:15 ` Guillermo E. Martinez @ 2022-06-20 13:42 ` Matthias Männich 2022-06-21 21:19 ` Nick Desaulniers ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Matthias Männich @ 2022-06-20 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillermo E. Martinez Cc: Giuliano Procida, Nick Desaulniers, Dodji Seketeli, elena.zannoni, clang-built-linux Hi! That is a very late response, sorry about that. In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your side? In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? Cheers, Matthias On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello guys, > > On our side we are working on: > > * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image > and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with > libabigail tools. > * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using > abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. > > * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html > * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html > > If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure > provides more details about it. > > Thanks for your comments, > Guillermo > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: > > Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. > > > > That sounds quite interesting. > > > > Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and > > what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). > > > > On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two > > buckets: > > > > 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full > > DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for > > HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same > > sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO > > 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond > > just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, > > macros and more > > > > Giuliano. > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, > > > and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail > > > including kernel support.] > > > > > > > Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > > > > Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > > > > Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > > > > this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > > > > > > > > Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > > > > Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > > > > of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). > > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-20 13:42 ` Matthias Männich @ 2022-06-21 21:19 ` Nick Desaulniers 2022-06-21 21:27 ` Elena Zannoni 2022-06-23 11:54 ` Dodji Seketeli 2022-06-24 9:03 ` Dodji Seketeli 2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2022-06-21 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Männich Cc: Guillermo E. Martinez, Giuliano Procida, Dodji Seketeli, Elena Zannoni, clang-built-linux On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > That is a very late response, sorry about that. > > In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring > Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more > generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already > finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your > side? We haven't finalized the schedule yet. Matthias, Guillermo, Giuliano can one of you perhaps fill out a proposal then for the ideas discussed in this thread on https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ with the "Track" set to "Toolchains Track?" > > In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize > ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into > binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to > not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make > sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some > additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > > Cheers, > Matthias > > > On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez > <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > Hello guys, > > > > On our side we are working on: > > > > * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image > > and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with > > libabigail tools. > > * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using > > abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. > > > > * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html > > * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html > > > > If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure > > provides more details about it. > > > > Thanks for your comments, > > Guillermo > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: > > > Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. > > > > > > That sounds quite interesting. > > > > > > Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and > > > what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). > > > > > > On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two > > > buckets: > > > > > > 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full > > > DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for > > > HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > > > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same > > > sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO > > > 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond > > > just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, > > > macros and more > > > > > > Giuliano. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, > > > > and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail > > > > including kernel support.] > > > > > > > > > Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > > > > > Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > > > > > Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > > > > > this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > > > > > > > > > > Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > > > > > Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > > > > > of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-21 21:19 ` Nick Desaulniers @ 2022-06-21 21:27 ` Elena Zannoni 2022-06-22 2:14 ` Guillermo E. Martinez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Elena Zannoni @ 2022-06-21 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers, Matthias Männich Cc: Guillermo E. Martinez, Giuliano Procida, Dodji Seketeli, clang-built-linux On 6/21/22 15:19, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> That is a very late response, sorry about that. >> >> In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring >> Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more >> generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already >> finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your >> side? > We haven't finalized the schedule yet. Matthias, Guillermo, Giuliano > can one of you perhaps fill out a proposal then for the ideas > discussed in this thread on https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ > with the "Track" set to "Toolchains Track?" > Hi, actually Guillermo was already working on that, will send something by the end of the day elena >> In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize >> ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into >> binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to >> not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make >> sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some >> additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? >> >> Cheers, >> Matthias >> >> >> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez >> <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: >>> Hello guys, >>> >>> On our side we are working on: >>> >>> * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image >>> and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with >>> libabigail tools. >>> * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using >>> abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. >>> >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html >>> >>> If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure >>> provides more details about it. >>> >>> Thanks for your comments, >>> Guillermo >>> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: >>>> Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. >>>> >>>> That sounds quite interesting. >>>> >>>> Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and >>>> what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). >>>> >>>> On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two >>>> buckets: >>>> >>>> 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full >>>> DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for >>>> HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link >>>> toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same >>>> sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO >>>> 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond >>>> just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, >>>> macros and more >>>> >>>> Giuliano. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, >>>>> and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail >>>>> including kernel support.] >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Matthias and Giuliano, >>>>>> Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a >>>>>> Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference >>>>>> this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI >>>>>> Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part >>>>>> of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). >>> >>> >>> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-21 21:27 ` Elena Zannoni @ 2022-06-22 2:14 ` Guillermo E. Martinez 2022-06-22 15:27 ` Guillermo E. Martinez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Guillermo E. Martinez @ 2022-06-22 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers, Matthias Männich, Elena Zannoni Cc: Giuliano Procida, Dodji Seketeli, clang-built-linux On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:27:18 PM CDT Elena Zannoni wrote: Hello guys, The paragraphs bellow summarize the proposal for Kernel ABI analysis talk in LPC, these ideas comes from the thread mail bellow. Please let me know your comments to submit it to https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ guillermo --- Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support The new CTF(Compact C Type Format) supported in libabigail is able to extract a corpus representation for the debug information in Kernel binary and its modules, i.e, entire Kernel release (kernel + modules). Using CTF reader improvements the time to extract and build the corpus compared with DWARF reader, for example, extracting ABI information from the Linux kernel takes up to ~4.5times less time, this was done using a Kernel compiled by GCC, nowadays LLVM doesn't support binaries generation with CTF debug info, would be nice to have this. But what about of the modules inserted (loaded) at runtime in the Kernel image?. To make the comparison it uses kABI scripts this is useful among other things to load modules with compatible kABI, this mechanism allows modules to be used with a different kernel version that of the kernel for which it was built. So what of using a single notion of ABI (libabigail) also for the modules loader? Since we add support for CTF in libabigail, is needed the patch for building the Kernel with CTF enabled in the Kernel upstream configuration. Also some GCC attributes that affect the ABI and are used by kernel hackers like noreturn, interrupt, etc. are not represented in DWARF/CTF debug format and therefore they are not present in the corpus. A stricter conformance to DWARF standards would be nice, full DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO. And an extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, macros and more The interest in discussing ways to standardize ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > On 6/21/22 15:19, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> That is a very late response, sorry about that. > >> > >> In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring > >> Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more > >> generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already > >> finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your > >> side? > > We haven't finalized the schedule yet. Matthias, Guillermo, Giuliano > > can one of you perhaps fill out a proposal then for the ideas > > discussed in this thread on https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ > > with the "Track" set to "Toolchains Track?" > > > > Hi, > > actually Guillermo was already working on that, will send something by the end of the day > > elena > > >> In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize > >> ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into > >> binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to > >> not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make > >> sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some > >> additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez > >> <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: > >>> Hello guys, > >>> > >>> On our side we are working on: > >>> > >>> * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image > >>> and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with > >>> libabigail tools. > >>> * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using > >>> abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. > >>> > >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html > >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html > >>> > >>> If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure > >>> provides more details about it. > >>> > >>> Thanks for your comments, > >>> Guillermo > >>> > >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: > >>>> Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. > >>>> > >>>> That sounds quite interesting. > >>>> > >>>> Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and > >>>> what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). > >>>> > >>>> On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two > >>>> buckets: > >>>> > >>>> 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full > >>>> DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for > >>>> HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > >>>> toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same > >>>> sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO > >>>> 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond > >>>> just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, > >>>> macros and more > >>>> > >>>> Giuliano. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, > >>>>> and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail > >>>>> including kernel support.] > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > >>>>>> Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > >>>>>> Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > >>>>>> this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > >>>>>> Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > >>>>>> of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-22 2:14 ` Guillermo E. Martinez @ 2022-06-22 15:27 ` Guillermo E. Martinez 2022-06-22 19:47 ` Nick Desaulniers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Guillermo E. Martinez @ 2022-06-22 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers, Matthias Männich, Elena Zannoni Cc: Giuliano Procida, Dodji Seketeli, clang-built-linux, jose.marchesi Hello, Any comment? Thanks, guillermo > Hello guys, > > The paragraphs bellow summarize the proposal for Kernel ABI analysis > talk in LPC, these ideas comes from the thread mail bellow. > > Please let me know your comments to submit it > to https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ > > guillermo > > --- > Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support > > The new CTF(Compact C Type Format) supported in libabigail is able > to extract a corpus representation for the debug information in > Kernel binary and its modules, i.e, entire Kernel release (kernel + > modules). Using CTF reader improvements the time to extract and build > the corpus compared with DWARF reader, for example, extracting ABI > information from the Linux kernel takes up to ~4.5times less > time, this was done using a Kernel compiled by GCC, nowadays LLVM > doesn't support binaries generation with CTF debug info, would be nice > to have this. > > But what about of the modules inserted (loaded) at runtime in the > Kernel image?. To make the comparison it uses kABI scripts this is > useful among other things to load modules with compatible kABI, this > mechanism allows modules to be used with a different kernel version > that of the kernel for which it was built. So what of using a single > notion of ABI (libabigail) also for the modules loader? > > Since we add support for CTF in libabigail, is needed the patch > for building the Kernel with CTF enabled in the Kernel upstream > configuration. Also some GCC attributes that affect the ABI and > are used by kernel hackers like noreturn, interrupt, etc. are not > represented in DWARF/CTF debug format and therefore they are not > present in the corpus. > > A stricter conformance to DWARF standards would be nice, full DWARF 5 > support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for HWASAN) > into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the > same sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO. And an > extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond just architecture, symbols > and types / dealing with header constants, macros and more > > The interest in discussing ways to standardize ABI and type > information in a way that it can be embedded into binaries in a less > ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to not rely entirely on > intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make sense of an ABI? Maybe > CTF is already a good starting point, yet some additions are needed > (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > > > On 6/21/22 15:19, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> wrote: > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >> That is a very late response, sorry about that. > > >> > > >> In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring > > >> Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more > > >> generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already > > >> finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your > > >> side? > > > We haven't finalized the schedule yet. Matthias, Guillermo, Giuliano > > > can one of you perhaps fill out a proposal then for the ideas > > > discussed in this thread on https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ > > > with the "Track" set to "Toolchains Track?" > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > actually Guillermo was already working on that, will send something by the end of the day > > > > elena > > > > >> In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize > > >> ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into > > >> binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to > > >> not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make > > >> sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some > > >> additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Matthias > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez > > >> <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: > > >>> Hello guys, > > >>> > > >>> On our side we are working on: > > >>> > > >>> * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image > > >>> and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with > > >>> libabigail tools. > > >>> * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using > > >>> abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. > > >>> > > >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html > > >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html > > >>> > > >>> If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure > > >>> provides more details about it. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your comments, > > >>> Guillermo > > >>> > > >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: > > >>>> Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. > > >>>> > > >>>> That sounds quite interesting. > > >>>> > > >>>> Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and > > >>>> what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). > > >>>> > > >>>> On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two > > >>>> buckets: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full > > >>>> DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for > > >>>> HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > > >>>> toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same > > >>>> sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO > > >>>> 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond > > >>>> just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, > > >>>> macros and more > > >>>> > > >>>> Giuliano. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, > > >>>>> and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail > > >>>>> including kernel support.] > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > > >>>>>> Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > > >>>>>> Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > > >>>>>> this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > > >>>>>> Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > > >>>>>> of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-22 15:27 ` Guillermo E. Martinez @ 2022-06-22 19:47 ` Nick Desaulniers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2022-06-22 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillermo E. Martinez Cc: Matthias Männich, Elena Zannoni, Giuliano Procida, Dodji Seketeli, clang-built-linux, Jose E. Marchesi On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 8:27 AM Guillermo E. Martinez <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Any comment? LGTM; please file a formal submission at https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ with the "Track" set to "Toolchains Track." > > Thanks, > guillermo > > > Hello guys, > > > > The paragraphs bellow summarize the proposal for Kernel ABI analysis > > talk in LPC, these ideas comes from the thread mail bellow. > > > > Please let me know your comments to submit it > > to https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ > > > > guillermo > > > > --- > > Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support > > > > The new CTF(Compact C Type Format) supported in libabigail is able > > to extract a corpus representation for the debug information in > > Kernel binary and its modules, i.e, entire Kernel release (kernel + > > modules). Using CTF reader improvements the time to extract and build > > the corpus compared with DWARF reader, for example, extracting ABI > > information from the Linux kernel takes up to ~4.5times less > > time, this was done using a Kernel compiled by GCC, nowadays LLVM > > doesn't support binaries generation with CTF debug info, would be nice > > to have this. > > > > But what about of the modules inserted (loaded) at runtime in the > > Kernel image?. To make the comparison it uses kABI scripts this is > > useful among other things to load modules with compatible kABI, this > > mechanism allows modules to be used with a different kernel version > > that of the kernel for which it was built. So what of using a single > > notion of ABI (libabigail) also for the modules loader? > > > > Since we add support for CTF in libabigail, is needed the patch > > for building the Kernel with CTF enabled in the Kernel upstream > > configuration. Also some GCC attributes that affect the ABI and > > are used by kernel hackers like noreturn, interrupt, etc. are not > > represented in DWARF/CTF debug format and therefore they are not > > present in the corpus. > > > > A stricter conformance to DWARF standards would be nice, full DWARF 5 > > support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for HWASAN) > > into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the > > same sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO. And an > > extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond just architecture, symbols > > and types / dealing with header constants, macros and more > > > > The interest in discussing ways to standardize ABI and type > > information in a way that it can be embedded into binaries in a less > > ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to not rely entirely on > > intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make sense of an ABI? Maybe > > CTF is already a good starting point, yet some additions are needed > > (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > > > > > On 6/21/22 15:19, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi! > > > >> > > > >> That is a very late response, sorry about that. > > > >> > > > >> In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring > > > >> Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more > > > >> generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already > > > >> finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your > > > >> side? > > > > We haven't finalized the schedule yet. Matthias, Guillermo, Giuliano > > > > can one of you perhaps fill out a proposal then for the ideas > > > > discussed in this thread on https://lpc.events/event/16/abstracts/ > > > > with the "Track" set to "Toolchains Track?" > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > actually Guillermo was already working on that, will send something by the end of the day > > > > > > elena > > > > > > >> In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize > > > >> ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into > > > >> binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to > > > >> not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make > > > >> sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some > > > >> additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Matthias > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez > > > >> <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >>> Hello guys, > > > >>> > > > >>> On our side we are working on: > > > >>> > > > >>> * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image > > > >>> and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with > > > >>> libabigail tools. > > > >>> * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using > > > >>> abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. > > > >>> > > > >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html > > > >>> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html > > > >>> > > > >>> If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure > > > >>> provides more details about it. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for your comments, > > > >>> Guillermo > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: > > > >>>> Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> That sounds quite interesting. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and > > > >>>> what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two > > > >>>> buckets: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full > > > >>>> DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for > > > >>>> HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link > > > >>>> toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same > > > >>>> sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO > > > >>>> 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond > > > >>>> just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, > > > >>>> macros and more > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Giuliano. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, > > > >>>>> and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail > > > >>>>> including kernel support.] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Matthias and Giuliano, > > > >>>>>> Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a > > > >>>>>> Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference > > > >>>>>> this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI > > > >>>>>> Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part > > > >>>>>> of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-20 13:42 ` Matthias Männich 2022-06-21 21:19 ` Nick Desaulniers @ 2022-06-23 11:54 ` Dodji Seketeli 2022-06-24 9:03 ` Dodji Seketeli 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dodji Seketeli @ 2022-06-23 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Männich Cc: Guillermo E. Martinez, Giuliano Procida, Nick Desaulniers, elena.zannoni, clang-built-linux Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> a écrit: > Hi! > > That is a very late response, sorry about that. > > In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring > Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more > generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already > finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your > side? > > In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize > ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into > binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to > not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make > sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some > additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? I'd be super interested in this topic, for what it's worth. I won't be able to attend the conference physically, though, only remotely. Would that work? Thanks. -- Dodji ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support 2022-06-20 13:42 ` Matthias Männich 2022-06-21 21:19 ` Nick Desaulniers 2022-06-23 11:54 ` Dodji Seketeli @ 2022-06-24 9:03 ` Dodji Seketeli 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dodji Seketeli @ 2022-06-24 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Männich Cc: Guillermo E. Martinez, Giuliano Procida, Nick Desaulniers, elena.zannoni, Cestmir Kalina, clang-built-linux Hey, Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> a écrit: > That is a very late response, sorry about that. No problem Matthias :-) I totally forgot about this thread to begin with, so thank you for reviving it. > In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring > Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more > generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already > finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your > side? > > In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize > ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into > binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to > not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make > sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some > additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)? Do you have something in particular in mind, Matthias? I am very curious about this. I know the idea is to discuss this at the conference, but a little bit of a teaser would be awesome, I guess ;-) Cheers, > > Cheers, > Matthias > > > On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez > <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Hello guys, >> >> On our side we are working on: >> >> * Gives the support to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image >> and Linux kernel modules using the CFT backed in with >> libabigail tools. >> * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using >> abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools. >> >> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html >> * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html >> >> If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC, I can for sure >> provides more details about it. >> >> Thanks for your comments, >> Guillermo >> >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote: >> > Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave. >> > >> > That sounds quite interesting. >> > >> > Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and >> > what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel). >> > >> > On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two >> > buckets: >> > >> > 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full >> > DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for >> > HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link >> > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same >> > sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO >> > 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond >> > just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants, >> > macros and more >> > >> > Giuliano. >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer, >> > > and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail >> > > including kernel support.] >> > > >> > > > Hi Matthias and Giuliano, >> > > > Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a >> > > > Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference >> > > > this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland. >> > > > >> > > > Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI >> > > > Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part >> > > > of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase). >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- Dodji ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-24 9:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-04-14 21:33 Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support Nick Desaulniers
2022-04-20 16:02 ` Jose E. Marchesi
[not found] ` <CAGvU0H=sjwsWEmq1R7LKHiPjB3aBkzQ_qJqXDxhT_rFJShgVFg@mail.gmail.com>
2022-05-07 2:15 ` Guillermo E. Martinez
2022-06-20 13:42 ` Matthias Männich
2022-06-21 21:19 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-06-21 21:27 ` Elena Zannoni
2022-06-22 2:14 ` Guillermo E. Martinez
2022-06-22 15:27 ` Guillermo E. Martinez
2022-06-22 19:47 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-06-23 11:54 ` Dodji Seketeli
2022-06-24 9:03 ` Dodji Seketeli
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.