From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
unwind function a consumer needs to call.
Currently, the only consumer is arch_stack_walk(). In the future,
arch_stack_walk_reliable() will be another consumer.
Currently, there is a check for a NULL task in unwind_frame(). It is not
needed since all current consumers pass a non-NULL task.
Use struct stackframe only within the unwind functions.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 0fb58fed54cb..7217c4f63ef7 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -69,9 +69,6 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
struct stack_info info;
- if (!tsk)
- tsk = current;
-
/* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
return -ENOENT;
@@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
- struct stackframe *frame,
+ unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
{
+ struct stackframe frame;
+
+ start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
+
while (1) {
int ret;
- if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
+ if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
break;
- ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
+ ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
if (ret < 0)
break;
}
@@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
- struct stackframe frame;
-
- if (regs)
- start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
- else if (task == current)
- start_backtrace(&frame,
- (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
- (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
- else
- start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
- thread_saved_pc(task));
-
- walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
+ unsigned long fp, pc;
+
+ if (regs) {
+ fp = regs->regs[29];
+ pc = regs->pc;
+ } else if (task == current) {
+ /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
+ fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
+ pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
+ } else {
+ /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
+ fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
+ pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
+ }
+ walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
}
--
2.25.1
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, [email protected] wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
>
> Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
> separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
> from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
> unwind function a consumer needs to call.
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, [email protected] wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
>
> Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
> separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
> from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
> unwind function a consumer needs to call.
>
> Currently, the only consumer is arch_stack_walk(). In the future,
> arch_stack_walk_reliable() will be another consumer.
>
> Currently, there is a check for a NULL task in unwind_frame(). It is not
> needed since all current consumers pass a non-NULL task.
Can you split the NULL check change into a preparatory patch? That change is
fine in isolation (and easier to review/ack), and it's nicer for future
bisection to not group that with unrelated changes.
> Use struct stackframe only within the unwind functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 0fb58fed54cb..7217c4f63ef7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -69,9 +69,6 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
> unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
> struct stack_info info;
>
> - if (!tsk)
> - tsk = current;
> -
> /* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
> if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
> return -ENOENT;
> @@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
>
> static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
> - struct stackframe *frame,
> + unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
> bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
> {
> + struct stackframe frame;
> +
> + start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
> +
> while (1) {
> int ret;
>
> - if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
> + if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
> break;
> - ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
> + ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
> if (ret < 0)
> break;
> }
> @@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
> struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> - struct stackframe frame;
> -
> - if (regs)
> - start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
> - else if (task == current)
> - start_backtrace(&frame,
> - (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
> - (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
> - else
> - start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> - thread_saved_pc(task));
> -
> - walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
> + unsigned long fp, pc;
> +
> + if (regs) {
> + fp = regs->regs[29];
> + pc = regs->pc;
> + } else if (task == current) {
> + /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
> + fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
> + pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
> + } else {
> + /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
> + fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
> + pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
> + }
> + walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
I'd prefer to leave this as-is. The new and old structure are largely
equivalent, so we haven't made this any simpler, but we have added more
arguments to walk_stackframe().
One thing I *would* like to do is move tsk into strcut stackframe, so we only
need to pass that around, which'll make it easier to refactor the core unwind
logic.
Thanks,
Mark.
On 11/30/21 9:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
>>
>> Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
>> separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
>> from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
>> unwind function a consumer needs to call.
>>
>> Currently, the only consumer is arch_stack_walk(). In the future,
>> arch_stack_walk_reliable() will be another consumer.
>>
>> Currently, there is a check for a NULL task in unwind_frame(). It is not
>> needed since all current consumers pass a non-NULL task.
>
> Can you split the NULL check change into a preparatory patch? That change is
> fine in isolation (and easier to review/ack), and it's nicer for future
> bisection to not group that with unrelated changes.
>
Will do this in the next version.
>> Use struct stackframe only within the unwind functions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> index 0fb58fed54cb..7217c4f63ef7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> @@ -69,9 +69,6 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
>> unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
>> struct stack_info info;
>>
>> - if (!tsk)
>> - tsk = current;
>> -
>> /* Final frame; nothing to unwind */
>> if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe)
>> return -ENOENT;
>> @@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
>> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
>>
>> static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
>> - struct stackframe *frame,
>> + unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
>> bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
>> {
>> + struct stackframe frame;
>> +
>> + start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
>> +
>> while (1) {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
>> + if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
>> break;
>> - ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
>> + ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> break;
>> }
>> @@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>> void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
>> struct pt_regs *regs)
>> {
>> - struct stackframe frame;
>> -
>> - if (regs)
>> - start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
>> - else if (task == current)
>> - start_backtrace(&frame,
>> - (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
>> - (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
>> - else
>> - start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>> - thread_saved_pc(task));
>> -
>> - walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
>> + unsigned long fp, pc;
>> +
>> + if (regs) {
>> + fp = regs->regs[29];
>> + pc = regs->pc;
>> + } else if (task == current) {
>> + /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
>> + fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
>> + pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
>> + } else {
>> + /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
>> + fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
>> + pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
>> + }
>> + walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
>
> I'd prefer to leave this as-is. The new and old structure are largely
> equivalent, so we haven't made this any simpler, but we have added more
> arguments to walk_stackframe().
>
This is just to simplify things when we eventually add arch_stack_walk_reliable().
That is all. All of the unwinding is done by a single unwinding function and
there are two consumers of that unwinding function - arch_stack_walk() and
arch_stack_walk_reliable().
> One thing I *would* like to do is move tsk into strcut stackframe, so we only
> need to pass that around, which'll make it easier to refactor the core unwind
> logic.
>
Will do this in the next version.
Thanks,
Madhavan
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 11/30/21 9:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, [email protected] wrote:
> >> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
> >> separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
> >> from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
> >> unwind function a consumer needs to call.
> >> @@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
> >> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
> >>
> >> static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
> >> - struct stackframe *frame,
> >> + unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
> >> bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
> >> {
> >> + struct stackframe frame;
> >> +
> >> + start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
> >> +
> >> while (1) {
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> - if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
> >> + if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
> >> break;
> >> - ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
> >> + ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> @@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> >> void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
> >> struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> - struct stackframe frame;
> >> -
> >> - if (regs)
> >> - start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
> >> - else if (task == current)
> >> - start_backtrace(&frame,
> >> - (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
> >> - (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
> >> - else
> >> - start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> >> - thread_saved_pc(task));
> >> -
> >> - walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
> >> + unsigned long fp, pc;
> >> +
> >> + if (regs) {
> >> + fp = regs->regs[29];
> >> + pc = regs->pc;
> >> + } else if (task == current) {
> >> + /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
> >> + fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
> >> + pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
> >> + } else {
> >> + /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
> >> + fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
> >> + pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
> >> + }
> >> + walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
> >
> > I'd prefer to leave this as-is. The new and old structure are largely
> > equivalent, so we haven't made this any simpler, but we have added more
> > arguments to walk_stackframe().
> >
>
> This is just to simplify things when we eventually add arch_stack_walk_reliable().
> That is all. All of the unwinding is done by a single unwinding function and
> there are two consumers of that unwinding function - arch_stack_walk() and
> arch_stack_walk_reliable().
I understand the theory, but I don't think that moving the start_backtrace()
call actually simplifies this in a meaningful way, and I think it'll make it
harder for us to make more meaningful simplifications later on.
As of patch 4 of this series, we'll have:
| noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
| void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
| struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
| unsigned long fp, pc;
|
| if (regs) {
| fp = regs->regs[29];
| pc = regs->pc;
| } else if (task == current) {
| /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
| fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
| pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
| } else {
| /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
| fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
| pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
| }
| walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
| }
|
| noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
| void *cookie,
| struct task_struct *task)
| {
| unsigned long fp, pc;
|
| if (task == current) {
| /* Skip arch_stack_walk_reliable() in the stack trace. */
| fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
| pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
| } else {
| /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
| fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
| pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
| }
| if (unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_fn, cookie))
| return 0;
| return -EINVAL;
| }
Which I do not think is substantially simpler than the naive extrapolation from
what we currently have, e.g.
| noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
| void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
| struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
| struct stackframe frame;
|
| if (regs) {
| unwind_init(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc)
| } else if (task == current) {
| unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
| __builtin_return_address(0));
| } else {
| unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
| thread_saved_pc(task);
| }
| walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
| }
|
| noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
| void *cookie,
| struct task_struct *task)
| {
| struct stackframe frame;
|
| if (task == current) {
| unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
| __builtin_return_address(0));
| } else {
| unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
| thread_saved_pc(task);
| }
| if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
| return 0;
| return -EINVAL;
| }
Further, I think we can factor this in a different way to reduce the
duplication:
| /*
| * TODO: document requirements here
| */
| static inline void unwind_init_from_current_regs(struct stackframe *frame,
| struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
| unwind_init(frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
| }
|
| /*
| * TODO: document requirements here
| */
| static inline void unwind_init_from_blocked_task(struct stackframe *frame,
| struct task_struct *tsk)
| {
| unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
| thread_saved_pc(task));
| }
|
| /*
| * TODO: document requirements here
| *
| * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
| * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
| */
| static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct stackframe *frame)
| {
| unwind_init(frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
| __builtin_return_address(0));
| }
|
| noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
| void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
| struct pt_regs *regs)
| {
| struct stackframe frame;
|
| if (regs)
| unwind_init_current_regs(&frame, regs);
| else if (task == current)
| unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
| else
| unwind_init_blocked_task(&frame, task);
|
| unwind(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
| }
|
| noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
| void *cookie,
| struct task_struct *task)
| {
| struct stackframe frame;
|
| if (task == current)
| unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
| else
| unwind_init_from_blocked_task(&frame, task);
|
| if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
| return 0;
| return -EINVAL;
| }
... which minimizes the duplication and allows us to add specialized
initialization for each case if necessary, which I believe we will need in
future to make unwinding across exception boundaries (such as when starting
with regs) more useful.
Thanks,
Mark.
On 11/30/21 12:29 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 11/30/21 9:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
>>>> separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
>>>> from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
>>>> unwind function a consumer needs to call.
>
>>>> @@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>>> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
>>>>
>>>> static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>>> - struct stackframe *frame,
>>>> + unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
>>>> bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct stackframe frame;
>>>> +
>>>> + start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
>>>> +
>>>> while (1) {
>>>> int ret;
>>>>
>>>> - if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
>>>> + if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
>>>> break;
>>>> - ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
>>>> + ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>>>> void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
>>>> struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct stackframe frame;
>>>> -
>>>> - if (regs)
>>>> - start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
>>>> - else if (task == current)
>>>> - start_backtrace(&frame,
>>>> - (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
>>>> - (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
>>>> - else
>>>> - start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>>>> - thread_saved_pc(task));
>>>> -
>>>> - walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
>>>> + unsigned long fp, pc;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (regs) {
>>>> + fp = regs->regs[29];
>>>> + pc = regs->pc;
>>>> + } else if (task == current) {
>>>> + /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
>>>> + fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
>>>> + pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
>>>> + fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
>>>> + pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
>>>> + }
>>>> + walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to leave this as-is. The new and old structure are largely
>>> equivalent, so we haven't made this any simpler, but we have added more
>>> arguments to walk_stackframe().
>>>
>>
>> This is just to simplify things when we eventually add arch_stack_walk_reliable().
>> That is all. All of the unwinding is done by a single unwinding function and
>> there are two consumers of that unwinding function - arch_stack_walk() and
>> arch_stack_walk_reliable().
>
> I understand the theory, but I don't think that moving the start_backtrace()
> call actually simplifies this in a meaningful way, and I think it'll make it
> harder for us to make more meaningful simplifications later on.
>
> As of patch 4 of this series, we'll have:
>
> | noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> | void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
> | struct pt_regs *regs)
> | {
> | unsigned long fp, pc;
> |
> | if (regs) {
> | fp = regs->regs[29];
> | pc = regs->pc;
> | } else if (task == current) {
> | /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
> | fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
> | pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
> | } else {
> | /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
> | fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
> | pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
> | }
> | walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
> | }
> |
> | noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
> | void *cookie,
> | struct task_struct *task)
> | {
> | unsigned long fp, pc;
> |
> | if (task == current) {
> | /* Skip arch_stack_walk_reliable() in the stack trace. */
> | fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
> | pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
> | } else {
> | /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
> | fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
> | pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
> | }
> | if (unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_fn, cookie))
> | return 0;
> | return -EINVAL;
> | }
>
> Which I do not think is substantially simpler than the naive extrapolation from
> what we currently have, e.g.
>
> | noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> | void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
> | struct pt_regs *regs)
> | {
> | struct stackframe frame;
> |
> | if (regs) {
> | unwind_init(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc)
> | } else if (task == current) {
> | unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
> | __builtin_return_address(0));
> | } else {
> | unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> | thread_saved_pc(task);
> | }
> | walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
> | }
> |
> | noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
> | void *cookie,
> | struct task_struct *task)
> | {
> | struct stackframe frame;
> |
> | if (task == current) {
> | unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
> | __builtin_return_address(0));
> | } else {
> | unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> | thread_saved_pc(task);
> | }
> | if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
> | return 0;
> | return -EINVAL;
> | }
>
> Further, I think we can factor this in a different way to reduce the
> duplication:
>
> | /*
> | * TODO: document requirements here
> | */
> | static inline void unwind_init_from_current_regs(struct stackframe *frame,
> | struct pt_regs *regs)
> | {
> | unwind_init(frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
> | }
> |
> | /*
> | * TODO: document requirements here
> | */
> | static inline void unwind_init_from_blocked_task(struct stackframe *frame,
> | struct task_struct *tsk)
> | {
> | unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> | thread_saved_pc(task));
> | }
> |
> | /*
> | * TODO: document requirements here
> | *
> | * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
> | * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
> | */
> | static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct stackframe *frame)
> | {
> | unwind_init(frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
> | __builtin_return_address(0));
> | }
> |
> | noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> | void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
> | struct pt_regs *regs)
> | {
> | struct stackframe frame;
> |
> | if (regs)
> | unwind_init_current_regs(&frame, regs);
> | else if (task == current)
> | unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
> | else
> | unwind_init_blocked_task(&frame, task);
> |
> | unwind(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
> | }
> |
> | noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
> | void *cookie,
> | struct task_struct *task)
> | {
> | struct stackframe frame;
> |
> | if (task == current)
> | unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
> | else
> | unwind_init_from_blocked_task(&frame, task);
> |
> | if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
> | return 0;
> | return -EINVAL;
> | }
>
> ... which minimizes the duplication and allows us to add specialized
> initialization for each case if necessary, which I believe we will need in
> future to make unwinding across exception boundaries (such as when starting
> with regs) more useful.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
OK. I don't mind doing it this way.
Thanks.
Madhavan
Hey Mark,
Do you have any comments on the rest of the series? I am working on the next version of the patchset.
If you have any other comments, I will wait.
Thanks.
Madhavan
On 11/30/21 2:29 PM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>
>
> On 11/30/21 12:29 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>>> On 11/30/21 9:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, arch_stack_walk() calls start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe()
>>>>> separately. There is no need to do that. Instead, call start_backtrace()
>>>>> from within walk_stackframe(). In other words, walk_stackframe() is the only
>>>>> unwind function a consumer needs to call.
>>
>>>>> @@ -143,15 +140,19 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>>>> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
>>>>>
>>>>> static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>>>> - struct stackframe *frame,
>>>>> + unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
>>>>> bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + struct stackframe frame;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
>>>>> +
>>>>> while (1) {
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
>>>>> + if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
>>>>> break;
>>>>> - ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
>>>>> + ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
>>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>>> break;
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -195,17 +196,19 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>>>>> void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
>>>>> struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct stackframe frame;
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (regs)
>>>>> - start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
>>>>> - else if (task == current)
>>>>> - start_backtrace(&frame,
>>>>> - (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
>>>>> - (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
>>>>> - else
>>>>> - start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>>>>> - thread_saved_pc(task));
>>>>> -
>>>>> - walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
>>>>> + unsigned long fp, pc;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (regs) {
>>>>> + fp = regs->regs[29];
>>>>> + pc = regs->pc;
>>>>> + } else if (task == current) {
>>>>> + /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
>>>>> + fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
>>>>> + pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
>>>>> + fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
>>>>> + pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer to leave this as-is. The new and old structure are largely
>>>> equivalent, so we haven't made this any simpler, but we have added more
>>>> arguments to walk_stackframe().
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is just to simplify things when we eventually add arch_stack_walk_reliable().
>>> That is all. All of the unwinding is done by a single unwinding function and
>>> there are two consumers of that unwinding function - arch_stack_walk() and
>>> arch_stack_walk_reliable().
>>
>> I understand the theory, but I don't think that moving the start_backtrace()
>> call actually simplifies this in a meaningful way, and I think it'll make it
>> harder for us to make more meaningful simplifications later on.
>>
>> As of patch 4 of this series, we'll have:
>>
>> | noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>> | void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
>> | struct pt_regs *regs)
>> | {
>> | unsigned long fp, pc;
>> |
>> | if (regs) {
>> | fp = regs->regs[29];
>> | pc = regs->pc;
>> | } else if (task == current) {
>> | /* Skip arch_stack_walk() in the stack trace. */
>> | fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
>> | pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
>> | } else {
>> | /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
>> | fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
>> | pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
>> | }
>> | walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
>> | }
>> |
>> | noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
>> | void *cookie,
>> | struct task_struct *task)
>> | {
>> | unsigned long fp, pc;
>> |
>> | if (task == current) {
>> | /* Skip arch_stack_walk_reliable() in the stack trace. */
>> | fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
>> | pc = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0);
>> | } else {
>> | /* Caller guarantees that the task is not running. */
>> | fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
>> | pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
>> | }
>> | if (unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_fn, cookie))
>> | return 0;
>> | return -EINVAL;
>> | }
>>
>> Which I do not think is substantially simpler than the naive extrapolation from
>> what we currently have, e.g.
>>
>> | noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>> | void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
>> | struct pt_regs *regs)
>> | {
>> | struct stackframe frame;
>> |
>> | if (regs) {
>> | unwind_init(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc)
>> | } else if (task == current) {
>> | unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
>> | __builtin_return_address(0));
>> | } else {
>> | unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>> | thread_saved_pc(task);
>> | }
>> | walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
>> | }
>> |
>> | noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
>> | void *cookie,
>> | struct task_struct *task)
>> | {
>> | struct stackframe frame;
>> |
>> | if (task == current) {
>> | unwind_init(&frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
>> | __builtin_return_address(0));
>> | } else {
>> | unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>> | thread_saved_pc(task);
>> | }
>> | if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
>> | return 0;
>> | return -EINVAL;
>> | }
>>
>> Further, I think we can factor this in a different way to reduce the
>> duplication:
>>
>> | /*
>> | * TODO: document requirements here
>> | */
>> | static inline void unwind_init_from_current_regs(struct stackframe *frame,
>> | struct pt_regs *regs)
>> | {
>> | unwind_init(frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
>> | }
>> |
>> | /*
>> | * TODO: document requirements here
>> | */
>> | static inline void unwind_init_from_blocked_task(struct stackframe *frame,
>> | struct task_struct *tsk)
>> | {
>> | unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>> | thread_saved_pc(task));
>> | }
>> |
>> | /*
>> | * TODO: document requirements here
>> | *
>> | * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
>> | * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
>> | */
>> | static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_caller(struct stackframe *frame)
>> | {
>> | unwind_init(frame, __builtin_frame_address(1),
>> | __builtin_return_address(0));
>> | }
>> |
>> | noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>> | void *cookie, struct task_struct *task,
>> | struct pt_regs *regs)
>> | {
>> | struct stackframe frame;
>> |
>> | if (regs)
>> | unwind_init_current_regs(&frame, regs);
>> | else if (task == current)
>> | unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
>> | else
>> | unwind_init_blocked_task(&frame, task);
>> |
>> | unwind(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
>> | }
>> |
>> | noinline int notrace arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_fn,
>> | void *cookie,
>> | struct task_struct *task)
>> | {
>> | struct stackframe frame;
>> |
>> | if (task == current)
>> | unwind_init_from_caller(&frame);
>> | else
>> | unwind_init_from_blocked_task(&frame, task);
>> |
>> | if (unwind(task, &frame, consume_fn, cookie))
>> | return 0;
>> | return -EINVAL;
>> | }
>>
>> ... which minimizes the duplication and allows us to add specialized
>> initialization for each case if necessary, which I believe we will need in
>> future to make unwinding across exception boundaries (such as when starting
>> with regs) more useful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>
> OK. I don't mind doing it this way.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Madhavan
>