From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ftrace: recordmcount: Handle sections with no non-weak symbols
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:47:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220429154726.19f72a1a@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1651257788.xtscezsfky.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 01:03:01 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > The point of this section is to know which functions in __mcount_loc may
> > have been overridden, as they would be found in the __mcount_loc_weak
> > section. And then we can do something "special" to them.
>
> I'm not sure I follow that. How are you intending to figure out which
> functions were overridden by looking at entries in the __mcount_loc_weak
> section?
If there's duplicates (or something strange with the offset) then we could
delete the one that has the match in the weak section.
>
> In the final vmlinux image, we only get offsets into .text for all
> mcount locations, but no symbol information. The only hint is the fact
> that a single kallsym symbol has multiple mcount locations within it.
> Even then, the symbol with duplicate mcount entries won't be the
> function that was overridden.
>
> We could do a kallsyms_lookup() on each entry and consult the
> __mcount_loc_weak section to identify duplicates, but that looks to be
> very expensive.
>
> Did you have a different approach in mind?
We only need to look at the ones in the weak section. How many that is may
determine if that's feasible or not.
>
> >
> >>
> >> As an example, in the issue described in this patch set, if powerpc
> >> starts over-riding kexec_arch_apply_relocations(), then the current weak
> >> implementation in kexec_file.o gets carried over to the final vmlinux,
> >> but the instructions will instead appear under the previous function in
> >> kexec_file.o: crash_prepare_elf64_headers(). This function may or may
> >> not be traced to begin with, so we won't be able to figure out if this
> >> is valid or not.
> >
> > If it was overridden, then there would be two entries for function that
> > overrides the weak function in the __mcount_loc section, right? One for the
> > new function, and one that was overridden.
>
> In the final vmlinux, we will have two entries: one pointing at the
> correct function, while the other will point to some other function
> name. So, at least from kallsym perspective, duplicate mcount entries
> won't be for the function that was overridden, but some arbitrary
> function that came before the weak function in the object file.
Right, and we should be able to find them.
>
> > Of course this could be more
> > complex if the new function had been marked notrace.
> >
> > I was thinking of doing this just so that we know what functions are weak
> > and perhaps need extra processing.
> >
> > Another issue with weak functions and ftrace just came up here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220428095803.66c17c32@gandalf.local.home/
>
> I noticed this just yesterday:
>
> # cat available_filter_functions | sort | uniq -d | wc -l
> 430
>
> I'm fairly certain that some of those are due to weak functions -- I
> just wasn't sure if all of those were.
Probably :-/
>
> I suppose this will now also be a problem with ftrace_location(), given
> that it was recently changed to look at an entire function for mcount
> locations?
>
Maybe. I have to focus on other things at the moment, but I'll try to find
some time to look at this deeper.
-- Steve
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-29 19:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-28 17:19 [PATCH v2 0/2] ftrace/recordmcount: Handle object files without section symbols Naveen N. Rao
2022-04-28 17:19 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ftrace: Drop duplicate mcount locations Naveen N. Rao
2022-04-28 17:19 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ftrace: recordmcount: Handle sections with no non-weak symbols Naveen N. Rao
2022-04-28 22:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-04-29 17:39 ` Naveen N. Rao
2022-04-29 17:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-04-29 19:33 ` Naveen N. Rao
2022-04-29 19:47 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
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=20220429154726.19f72a1a@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).