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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e2e8728c4c4553bbac75a64b148e402183699c0c.1614780567.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
 <CANpmjNOvgbUCf0QBs1J-mO0yEPuzcTMm7aS1JpPB-17_LabNHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1802be3e-dc1a-52e0-1754-a40f0ea39658@csgroup.eu> <YD+o5QkCZN97mH8/@elver.google.com>
 <20210304145730.GC54534@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <CANpmjNOSpFbbDaH9hNucXrpzG=HpsoQpk5w-24x8sU_G-6cz0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210304165923.GA60457@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <YEEYDSJeLPvqRAHZ@elver.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YEEYDSJeLPvqRAHZ@elver.google.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:54:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=wBArMwvtDC8zV-QjQa5UuwWoxksQ8j+hUCZzbEAn+Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc: Include running function as first entry in
 save_stack_trace() and friends
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:42 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 04:59PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 04:30:34PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 15:57, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > [adding Mark Brown]
> > > >
> > > > The bigger problem here is that skipping is dodgy to begin with, and
> > > > this is still liable to break in some cases. One big concern is that
> > > > (especially with LTO) we cannot guarantee the compiler will not inline
> > > > or outline functions, causing the skipp value to be too large or too
> > > > small. That's liable to happen to callers, and in theory (though
> > > > unlikely in practice), portions of arch_stack_walk() or
> > > > stack_trace_save() could get outlined too.
> > > >
> > > > Unless we can get some strong guarantees from compiler folk such that we
> > > > can guarantee a specific function acts boundary for unwinding (and
> > > > doesn't itself get split, etc), the only reliable way I can think to
> > > > solve this requires an assembly trampoline. Whatever we do is liable to
> > > > need some invasive rework.
> > >
> > > Will LTO and friends respect 'noinline'?
> >
> > I hope so (and suspect we'd have more problems otherwise), but I don't
> > know whether they actually so.
> >
> > I suspect even with 'noinline' the compiler is permitted to outline
> > portions of a function if it wanted to (and IIUC it could still make
> > specialized copies in the absence of 'noclone').
> >
> > > One thing I also noticed is that tail calls would also cause the stack
> > > trace to appear somewhat incomplete (for some of my tests I've
> > > disabled tail call optimizations).
> >
> > I assume you mean for a chain A->B->C where B tail-calls C, you get a
> > trace A->C? ... or is A going missing too?
>
> Correct, it's just the A->C outcome.
>
> > > Is there a way to also mark a function non-tail-callable?
> >
> > I think this can be bodged using __attribute__((optimize("$OPTIONS")))
> > on a caller to inhibit TCO (though IIRC GCC doesn't reliably support
> > function-local optimization options), but I don't expect there's any way
> > to mark a callee as not being tail-callable.
>
> I don't think this is reliable. It'd be
> __attribute__((optimize("-fno-optimize-sibling-calls"))), but doesn't
> work if applied to the function we do not want to tail-call-optimize,
> but would have to be applied to the function that does the tail-calling.
> So it's a bit backwards, even if it worked.
>
> > Accoding to the GCC documentation, GCC won't TCO noreturn functions, but
> > obviously that's not something we can use generally.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes

include/linux/compiler.h:246:
prevent_tail_call_optimization

commit a9a3ed1eff36 ("x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try")

>
> Perhaps we can ask the toolchain folks to help add such an attribute. Or
> maybe the feature already exists somewhere, but hidden.
>
> +Cc linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
>
> > > But I'm also not sure if with all that we'd be guaranteed the code we
> > > want, even though in practice it might.
> >
> > True! I'd just like to be on the least dodgy ground we can be.
>
> It's been dodgy for a while, and I'd welcome any low-cost fixes to make
> it less dodgy in the short-term at least. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> -- Marco


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers