Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102b:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x11csp1646841ybt; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydAysIDafImvI4gxWEm4OxRYUFt93g5+aqIKq8hL2hATHZ71biA4iR8lGPivBo0MwbZYQr X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fa03:: with SMTP id lo3mr547756ejb.196.1592513242223; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1592513242; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=hplZGNekYPYj96q1+wocbSNOGmnBY6bhE/VzegavI5SlzqK7pKPCDTn9oYWta50WYh XfcUyQglRZVNkfBNntjJI5COeX7TykysQhhPDOuA/H6GKv8stR0DAmUuedwl2PsdkIdk BFAQVoM1otWaR82JO0KyrCzZ+Wcyzok70YyI9SkQ9Nt7loCDIB/vVEqYWzFGVluD5io1 Z6s0lKAOdayG38V/Ov3ZIYtzBxTF7/AYuK7tI9FYkyRO13/UoGAJ4NBHqzQD3pdwBGLm jL7rsmzFKo1pamoNFa5jesG8XwmoMGhpvITdIpRY94HBMkjoViJ6BFhgWlyDZbWNAGvr NWCg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=xnQxnEGFqJBRLt94YNylhgWnHetVl/qVFrV3Ml9hdCk=; b=UXqi6nbRs+aNbLitP1tG+47oP3SYloBQyWnV22ko2D7DDRr6O5fkyjcTQBFcLAudJ0 KoKjCZJb0oMC0QMq+jIxBamHQCNNdKhvISYyGlmo9UTOsDu08fYh/bUY8bs6nDLE1Xxg HC+UxaLxnrdCdLXELeS1F0/Tamxy0Wx0+w0WXC6g3NbK4W5OfnkIMnaSPd0Vsu1lj8/T 6fae5hEUXcSwc1VqOLpUblZ5LxrghjYjlxX+o7ggF8htLMS6X0H3cqaCtJFehLTq9DUy M4ZyGR9tm9NUcRxunzuWkOhCyOxTqMjGobLXIGHZ2wcW806iOE9ZOfCjt7mgCqokzRGh 3LUQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=aTn9yjeK; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si2918901edr.179.2020.06.18.13.46.59; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=aTn9yjeK; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728190AbgFRUW6 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:22:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53344 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727971AbgFRUW6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:22:58 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1043.google.com (mail-pj1-x1043.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1043]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65137C06174E for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1043.google.com with SMTP id b7so3701694pju.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:22:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xnQxnEGFqJBRLt94YNylhgWnHetVl/qVFrV3Ml9hdCk=; b=aTn9yjeKEwTKKCUcFeRW7sUrGP5djzWcTw5h3fP1Mg6Q8g4FLlgPY5CfyRIpnT9vFS 3rLp9irVfn3I11WLJfhn0BDFSL0uNtO4GNOlumgqVilbB/8bpMjCiBEu1++cNbLFuZxX ao6NczHahM/Kd1mJZshskFBOcJTTpYHdy4+5WifflqL26LEbpFm66yif3CxvK1rlgPYn bxMg3IWiJnXi7E5APpb+4LXlAOEuKB5aOtn5ThG6vs68KOy3qK/iSmd5AsoR/dWj6rhb UxR8fkpyMry1ZCaMZNUKzQqTIxukD8UowwVWIjsoX1K8RcbvpdM/FN969eVJ1g2xJIcH +18w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xnQxnEGFqJBRLt94YNylhgWnHetVl/qVFrV3Ml9hdCk=; b=T7SsxN6AoGZDMHkkv5FsR+7jpEyxRlgeHswQJxiKOQRHXNqCM6+Z6QwQjxS6IuECX0 MQOwLq3jx1uXNdGpD6TDLGY5FqhbgRem/FwEvC/H3T6sEYv/5wdS/1eL6cYY4KQdNlUT xzbMKPp0IcFHjNUXL1Lm0w6gjQL1h3dxyl11rP1IH8zKlUfH5NFm18jkq+e3VxffZuTZ FRvs32Fgoo2zWQAxLzhrvMGHv+xzEvv0KpdHHwaZMTmBe0v6IIg36fhH/5TKihnELiT0 5C3Las2K5AgQuY9LhybrG8+Wu1HXFPdFSjoQ98dVvDDk9Xu5uwSg2qGGhNkJ1IOUkNHY qTbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533aEVEJVlpMuRwgGuTWzVEcaDGVRO0WdinGGo+pxMOABMnmt0pK G/dvGaxyJ240vlYV600nCFrBfVsOsQB/LsmdM1USsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b698:: with SMTP id c24mr5053874pls.223.1592511777575; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:22:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200616223633.73971-1-nhuck@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20200616223633.73971-1-nhuck@google.com> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:22:45 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix unwind_frame for clang-built kernels To: Nathan Huckleberry , =?UTF-8?B?TWlsZXMgQ2hlbiAo6Zmz5rCR5qi6KQ==?= Cc: Russell King , Vincent Whitchurch , Linux ARM , LKML , clang-built-linux , Sedat Dilek , Catalin Marinas , Kristof Beyls Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:36 PM 'Nathan Huckleberry' via Clang Built Linux wrote: > > Since clang does not push pc and sp in function prologues, the current > implementation of unwind_frame does not work. By using the previous > frame's lr/fp instead of saved pc/sp we get valid unwinds on clang-built > kernels. > > The bounds check on next frame pointer must be changed as well since > there are 8 less bytes between frames. > > This fixes /proc//stack. > > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/912 > Signed-off-by: Nathan Huckleberry Thanks for the patch, Nathan! When I looked into this, I found the latest ARM AAPCS [0] specifically says (with `it` referring to `a platform`: "It may permit the frame pointer register to be used as a general-purpose callee-saved register, but provide a platform-specific mechanism for external agents to reliably locate the chain of frame records." While it's good that's acknowledged in the documentation, the current wording is relaxed in order to not force current implementations to converge. This has the unfortunate side effect of making finding the frame pointer toolchain dependendent, hence this patch and your previous commit 6dc5fd93b2f1 ("ARM: 8900/1: UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER implementation for Clang"). Being more specific in the documentation would force at least one implementation to change, and I think that would also imply an ABI break. So I can see it both ways, though I still would prefer that the language pin this down, even if we had to change LLVM. Just providing additional context for folks on the thread. This should also have a reported by tag from Miles, in v2. Reported-by: Miles Chen Miles mentioned to me that he tested it, but maybe Miles can confirm that publicly on-list via an explicit Tested-by: tag? This would be useful for us to have in stable; otherwise we'll have to carry out of tree in Android and CrOS, which I'd rather not do. Via Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, if you add this tag to V2, that will greatly simplify submitting this to stable: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Miles also showed me the behavior of this patch for different kernel versions, which varies anywhere from empty or single entry traces to panics, so this is pretty important that this works for Clang builds. [0] https://static.docs.arm.com/ihi0042/i/aapcs32.pdf > --- > arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > index cc726afea023..76ea4178a55c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > @@ -22,6 +22,19 @@ > * A simple function epilogue looks like this: > * ldm sp, {fp, sp, pc} > * > + * When compiled with clang, pc and sp are not pushed. A simple function > + * prologue looks like this when built with clang: > + * > + * stmdb {..., fp, lr} > + * add fp, sp, #x > + * sub sp, sp, #y > + * > + * A simple function epilogue looks like this when built with clang: > + * > + * sub sp, fp, #x > + * ldm {..., fp, pc} > + * > + * > * Note that with framepointer enabled, even the leaf functions have the same > * prologue and epilogue, therefore we can ignore the LR value in this case. > */ > @@ -34,6 +47,16 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame) > low = frame->sp; > high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG > + /* check current frame pointer is within bounds */ > + if (fp < low + 4 || fp > high - 4) The patch LGTM; maybe Russell or Catalin could triple check this bounds check? Assuming there's no issue, you can include on a v2 my reviewed by: Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers I'd probably wait the remainder of a week before sending a v2 to collect additional feedback. Thank you again. > + return -EINVAL; > + > + frame->sp = frame->fp; > + frame->fp = *(unsigned long *)(fp); > + frame->pc = frame->lr; > + frame->lr = *(unsigned long *)(fp + 4); > +#else > /* check current frame pointer is within bounds */ > if (fp < low + 12 || fp > high - 4) > return -EINVAL; > @@ -42,6 +65,7 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame) > frame->fp = *(unsigned long *)(fp - 12); > frame->sp = *(unsigned long *)(fp - 8); > frame->pc = *(unsigned long *)(fp - 4); > +#endif > > return 0; > } > -- > 2.27.0.290.gba653c62da-goog > > -- -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers