Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 12:05:08 +0000
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>,
        Michael Weiser <michael.weiser@gmx.de>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/arm64 : fix error in dump_backtrace
Message-ID: <20181106120508.hftgyoj47qygt7b2@holly.lan>
References: <1541488775-29610-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
 <20181106083901.erezwtcomiijvdrk@salmiak>
 <20181106085751.hrp7qkp53cftgew6@holly.lan>
 <20181106110019.36ps3tyakvocwst4@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181106110019.36ps3tyakvocwst4@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:00:19AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:57:51AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:39:01AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:19:35PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> > > > 
> > > > In some cases, the instruction of "bl foo1" will be the last one of the
> > > > foo2[1], which will cause the lr be the first instruction of the adjacent
> > > > foo3[2]. Hence, the backtrace will show the weird result as bellow[3].
> > > > The patch will fix it by miner 4 of the lr when dump_backtrace
> > > 
> > > This has come up in the past (and a similar patch has been applied, then
> > > reverted).
> > > 
> > > In general, we don't know that a function call was made via BL, and therefore
> > > cannot know that LR - 4 is the address of the caller. The caller could set up
> > > the LR as it likes, then B or BR to the callee, and depending on how the basic
> > > blocks get laid out in memory, LR - 4 might point at something completely
> > > different.
> > > 
> > > More ideally, the compiler wouldn't end a function with a BL. When does that
> > > happen, and is there some way we could arrange for that to not happen? e.g.
> > > somehow pad a NOP after the BL.
> > 
> > It's a consequence of having __noreturn isn't it? __noreturn frees the
> > compiler from the burden of having to produce a valid return stack... so
> > it doesn't and unwinding becomes hard.
> 
> In that case, the compiler could equally just use B rather than BL,
> which this patch doesn't solve.
> 
> The documentation for the GCC noreturn attribute [1] says:
> 
> | In order to preserve backtraces, GCC will never turn calls to noreturn
> | functions into tail calls. 
> 
> ... so clearly it's not intended to mess up backtracing.

I guess that explains why the compiler chooses BL over B (since B would
be a tail call).


> IIUC we mostly use noreturn to prevent warings about uninitialised
> variables and such after a call to a noreturn function. I think
> optimization is a secondary concern.
> 
> We could ask the GCC folk if they can ensure that a noreturn function
> call leave thes LR pointing into the caller, e.g. by padding with a NOP:
> 
> 	BL	<noreturn function>
> 	NOP
> 
> That seems cheap enough, and would keep backtraces reliable.

It might be worth discussing. One related question though... is there
any other case there the symbol name other than __noreturn where the
symbol can change between LR and LR-1?

If not can't we just switch over to %pB which is designed for this case
(and in case you ask: no... I didn't know about %pB until this morning
when I started trying to implement the heuristic it uses by hand and
then discovering it by accident).

Something like:

From 70a2c9ffc962a650ff894d40b775f8310190bf86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:59:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Use %pB to print backtrace symbols

Currently arm64 uses %pS to print backtrace symbols but %pB (which takes
into consideration the effect of compiler optimisations which may occur
when tail-calls are used and marked with the noreturn GCC attribute)
is a better alternative.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index 5f4d9acb32f5..ea571d3a1373 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ int show_unhandled_signals = 0;
 
 static void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where)
 {
-	printk(" %pS\n", (void *)where);
+	printk(" %pB\n", (void *)where);
 }
 
 static void __dump_instr(const char *lvl, struct pt_regs *regs)
-- 
2.19.1