Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753502AbaGNISk (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2014 04:18:40 -0400 Received: from mail9.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.44]:36699 "EHLO mail9.hitachi.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753436AbaGNISb (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2014 04:18:31 -0400 Message-ID: <53C39250.20200@hitachi.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:18:24 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu Organization: Hitachi, Ltd., Japan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Jiri Kosina , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Oleg Nesterov , Seth Jennings , Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] ftrace: Add dynamically allocated trampolines References: <20140703200750.648550267@goodmis.org> <20140710213620.GA19858@treble.redhat.com> <53BF4B5A.3000302@hitachi.com> <20140711142928.GA13037@treble.redhat.com> <53C333D9.4030907@hitachi.com> <87ion02yx3.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> In-Reply-To: <87ion02yx3.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2014/07/14 16:16), Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:35:21 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/07/11 23:29), Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> [...] >>> >>> >From 951d2aec17885a62905df6b910dc705d99c63993 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Josh Poimboeuf >>> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:58:33 -0500 >>> Subject: [PATCH] x86/dumpstack: fix stack traces for generated code >>> >>> If a function in the stack trace is dynamically generated, for example an >>> ftrace dynamically generated trampoline, print_context_stack() gets confused >>> and ends up showing all the following addresses as unreliable: >>> >>> [ 934.546013] [] dump_stack+0x45/0x56 >>> [ 934.546020] [] ? meminfo_proc_open+0x30/0x30 >>> [ 934.546027] [] kpatch_ftrace_handler+0x14/0xf0 [kpatch] >>> [ 934.546058] [] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0 >>> [ 934.546062] [] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0 >>> [ 934.546067] [] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0 >>> [ 934.546071] [] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0 >>> [ 934.546075] [] ? seq_read+0x16a/0x3b0 >>> [ 934.546081] [] ? proc_reg_read+0x3d/0x80 >>> [ 934.546088] [] ? vfs_read+0x98/0x170 >>> [ 934.546093] [] ? SyS_read+0x55/0xd0 >>> [ 934.546099] [] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b >>> >>> Once it encounters an address which is not in the kernel's text area, it gets >>> confused and stops updating the frame pointer. >> >> Right, this uses a module_alloc to get a memory for trampline, but >> it just allocates a page in executable vmalloc area. We need a hack >> in __kernel_text_address if we really want to use that. >> >>> The __kernel_text_address() check isn't needed when determining whether an >>> address is reliable. It's only needed when deciding whether to print an >>> unreliable address. >> >> Yeah, I guess that is for the case that the frame pointer is broken. >> >>> >>> Here's the same stack trace with this patch: >>> >>> [ 1314.612287] [] dump_stack+0x45/0x56 >>> [ 1314.612290] [] ? meminfo_proc_open+0x30/0x30 >>> [ 1314.612293] [] kpatch_ftrace_handler+0x14/0xf0 [kpatch] >>> [ 1314.612306] [] 0xffffffffa00160c3 >> >> Here, this still has a wrong entry. Maybe the trampline doesn't setup >> frame pointer (bp) correctly. > > Hmm.. are you saying about the hex address above? I guess it's a valid > entry in the (dynamic) trampoline, but has no symbol.. Ah, indeed. (BTW, why is it one less than the address ...? printk's spec?) >>> [ 1314.612309] [] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0 >>> [ 1314.612311] [] ? seq_read+0x2de/0x3b0 >>> [ 1314.612312] [] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0 >>> [ 1314.612314] [] ? meminfo_proc_show+0x5/0x5e0 >>> [ 1314.612315] [] ? seq_read+0x16a/0x3b0 > > But these seem to be wrong - there're duplicate entries and they should > show some of these functions (at least) correctly IMHO. I guess it's > because the trampoline didn't save rbp to the stack right below the > return address as dumpstack requires. Right, the last seq_read should be reliable. Thank you for pointing out. Thanks! -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/