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, 31 Mar 2020 23:07:20 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] objtool,ftrace: Implement UNWIND_HINT_RET_OFFSET
Message-ID: <20200331210720.GG2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200326135620.tlmof5fa7p5wct62@treble>
 <20200326154938.GO20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200326195718.GD2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200327010001.i3kebxb4um422ycb@treble>
 <20200330170200.GU20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200330190205.k5ssixd5hpshpjjq@treble>
 <20200330200254.GV20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200331111652.GH20760@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200331202315.zialorhlxmml6ec7@treble>
 <20200331204047.GF2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200331204047.GF2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:23:15PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> > I now understand what you're trying to do with the RET_TAIL thing, and I
> > guess it's ok for the ftrace case.  But I'd rather an UNWIND_HINT_IGNORE
> > before the tail cail, which would tell objtool to just silence the tail
> > call warning.  It's simpler for the user to understand, it's simpler
> > logic in objtool, and I think an "ignore warnings for the next insn"
> > hint would be more generally applicable anyway.
> 
> I like how this is specific on how far the stack can be off, as opposed
> so say 'ignore any warning on this instruction'.
> 
> Because by saying this RET should be +8, we'll still get a warning when
> this is not the case (and in fact I should strengthen the patch to
> implement that).

Like this; I'm confused on what cfa.offset is vs stack_size though.

But this way we're strict and always warn when the unexpected happens.

--- a/tools/objtool/check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
@@ -1423,8 +1423,7 @@ static bool has_modified_stack_frame(str
 	    !(ret_offset && state->cfa.offset == initial_func_cfi.cfa.offset + ret_offset))
 		return true;
 
-	if (state->stack_size != initial_func_cfi.cfa.offset &&
-	    !(ret_offset && state->stack_size == initial_func_cfi.cfa.offset + ret_offset))
+	if (state->stack_size != initial_func_cfi.cfa.offset + ret_offset)
 		return true;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < CFI_NUM_REGS; i++) {