Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc: Include running function as first entry in save_stack_trace() and friends

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	broonie@kernel.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc: Include running function as first entry in save_stack_trace() and friends
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:04:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210305120453.GA74705@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNMQNWBtWS7O_aaCfbMWvQUnzWTPXoxgD8DzqNzKfL_2Dg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:01:29PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 19:51, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 07:22:53PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:

> > > I was having this problem with KCSAN, where the compiler would
> > > tail-call-optimize __tsan_X instrumentation.
> >
> > Those are compiler-generated calls, right? When those are generated the
> > compilation unit (and whatever it has included) might not have provided
> > a prototype anyway, and the compiler has special knowledge of the
> > functions, so it feels like the compiler would need to inhibit TCO here
> > for this to be robust. For their intended usage subjecting them to TCO
> > doesn't seem to make sense AFAICT.
> >
> > I suspect that compilers have some way of handling that; otherwise I'd
> > expect to have heard stories of mcount/fentry calls getting TCO'd and
> > causing problems. So maybe there's an easy fix there?
> 
> I agree, the compiler builtins should be handled by the compiler
> directly, perhaps that was a bad example. But we also have "explicit
> instrumentation", e.g. everything that's in <linux/instrumented.h>.

True -- I agree for those we want similar, and can see a case for a
no-tco-calls-to-me attribute on functions as with noreturn.

Maybe for now it's worth adding prevent_tail_call_optimization() to the
instrument_*() call wrappers in <linux/instrumented.h>? As those are
__always_inline, that should keep the function they get inlined in
around. Though we probably want to see if we can replace the mb() in
prevent_tail_call_optimization() with something that doesn't require a
real CPU barrier.

[...]

> > I reckon for basically any instrumentation we don't want calls to be
> > TCO'd, though I'm not immediately sure of cases beyond sanitizers and
> > mcount/fentry.
> 
> Thinking about this more, I think it's all debugging tools. E.g.
> lockdep, if you lock/unlock at the end of a function, you might tail
> call into lockdep. If the compiler applies TCO, and lockdep determines
> there's a bug and then shows a trace, you'll have no idea where the
> actual bug is. The kernel has lots of debugging facilities that add
> instrumentation in this way. So perhaps it's a general debugging-tool
> problem (rather than just sanitizers).

This makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Mark.