Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 16:00:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy_uKkr1RAQGD6sptymmGZzN8-E=rEMLP-89k8oz5_07w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVjpxYYBwFxWq+oQ9XCmnKsnw=xV0p7dxx-DJGvGCCPgA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> The amount of unreadable crap and bugs it requires is not worth the
>> pain. Not for *any* amount of gain, and the gain here is basically
>> zero.
>
> But what if objtool autogenerated the annotations, perhaps with a tiny
> bit of help telling it "hardware frame goes here" or "pt_regs goes
> here"?

You snipped the next part of my email, where I said:

> The *only* acceptable model is automated tools (ie objtool). Don't
> even bother to try to go any other way. Because I will not accept that
> shit.

so yes, objtool parsing things on its own is acceptable (and it had
better not need any help - it already checks frame pointer data).

The CFI annotations needed in asm are horrendous. We used to have
them, and we didn't have even _remotely_ complete annotations and
despite that they were
 (a) wrong
 (b) incomplete
 (c) made the asm impossible to read and even worse to modify.

hjl already posted an example of the kinds of horrors glibc does to do
things "right". And those rabbit ears around "right" are there for a
reason. There's no way that is ever right - even if it gets the right
results, it's an unmaintainable piece of crap.

So no, we're never ever adding that CFI garbage back into the kernel.

A tool that can generate it is ok, but even then we should expect
inevitable bugs and not trust the end result blindly.

Because dwarf info is complex enough that other tools have gotten it
wrong many many times. Just google for "gcc bugzilla cfi" or go to the
gcc bugzilla and search for "DWARF" or whatever. It's not "oh, we once
had a bug". It's constant.

One of the reasons I like the idea of having objtool generate
something *simpler* than dwarf is that it not only is much easier to
parse, it has a much higher likelihood of not having some crazy bug.
If objtool mainly looks at the actual instructions, and perhaps uses
dwarf information as additional input and creates something much
simpler than dwarf, it might have a chance in hell of occasionally
even getting it right.

Because dwarf information is really really complicated. It's
complicated because it contains *way* more information than just how
to find the next stack frame.

I mean, it has basically a RPN interpreter built in, and that's the
_simple_ part.

                  Linus