Re: [PATCH v2] objtool,ftrace: Implement UNWIND_HINT_RET_OFFSET

From: Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	mhiramat@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] objtool,ftrace: Implement UNWIND_HINT_RET_OFFSET
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:16:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <30b3df44-6254-b5a7-2f5d-0bc071adb00e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200402075036.GA20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 4/2/20 8:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:41:46AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> On 4/1/20 6:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>>> The code in question (x86's sync_core()), is an exception return to
>>> self. It pushes an exception frame that points to right after the
>>> exception return instruction.
>>>
>>> This is the only usage of IRET in STT_FUNC symbols.
>>>
>>> So rather than teaching objtool how to interpret the whole
>>> push;push;push;push;push;iret sequence, teach it how big the frame is
>>> (arch_exception_frame_size) and let it continue.
>>>
>>> All the other (real) IRETs are in STT_NOTYPE in the entry assembly.
>>>
>>
>> Right, I see.. However I'm not completely convinced by this. I must admit I
>> haven't followed the whole conversation, but what was the issue with the
>> HINT_IRET_SELF? It seemed more elegant, but I might be missing some context.
> 
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200331211755.pb7f3wa6oxzjnswc@treble
> 
> Josh didn't think it was worth it, I think.
> 
>> Otherwise, it might be worth having a comment in the code to point that this
>> only handles the sync_core() case.
> 
> I can certainly do that. Does ARM have any ERETs sprinkled around in
> places it should not have? That is, is this going to be a problem for
> you?
> 

I had a quick look and I don't think there are ERETS in function 
symbols. And, worst case scenario, I could also just keep the arm64 
decoder making ERETS as INSN_CONTEXT_SWITCH as I didn't need more 
semantics so far (and arm64 ERET don't affect the stack anyway).

After you pointed out this only affect this very specific pattern, I 
admit that my concerns are more about "not having weird stuff in the 
generic part".
If it's too much of a hassle I can understand if you prefer to just put 
a comment. But if most of this can be kept to the arch specific decoder 
I think it'd be nicer :) .

>> Also, instead of adding a special "arch_exception_frame_size", I could
>> suggest:
>> - Picking this patch [1] from a completely arbitrary source
>> - Getting rid of INSN_STACK type, any instruction could then include stack
>> ops on top of their existing semantics, they can just have an empty list if
>> they don't touch SP/BP
>> - x86 decoder adds a stack_op to the iret to modify the stack pointer by the
>> right amount
> 
> That's not the worst idea, lemme try that.
> 

Thanks, keep me in Cc if you post a new version using that!

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Thierry