From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934299AbdKGVZP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:25:15 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52550 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750941AbdKGVZN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:25:13 -0500
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A08B25F152
Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mpatocka@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:25:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
X-X-Sender: mpatocka@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: fix build of 64-bit kernel with 32-bit
 userspace
In-Reply-To: <20171107175539.zkbzaapmok2b7hbb@treble>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1711071607160.27454@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1711061812460.18820@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <20171107175539.zkbzaapmok2b7hbb@treble>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:25:13 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> > Is there some technical reason why do you want to avoid 
> > CONFIG_GUESS_UNWINDER?
> 
> The technical reason for avoiding the guess unwinder is that it's
> sketchy: it gives false positive results.

I've always used kernels without frame pointer and I don't see any problem 
with decoding stack traces with some phantom entries that were left in the 
stack - it's easy to find out which functions could call which functions 
and discard the phantom entries.

> Not only for oopses, but for all the other users of the unwinder: 
> /proc/<pid>/stack, perf, lockdep, etc.  So it's a correctness issue.

Experts need these features, but casual users don't.

> I agree with you that the frame pointer unwinder has drawbacks, but if
> somebody cares about those drawbacks, I would consider that person an
> "expert" ;-)

The Kconfig entry says that frame pointers degrade performance by 5-10% - 
so almost any user would care about it, not just experts.

Mikulas