lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3] arm: ftrace: Adds support for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
2017-02-10 13:03 GMT+01:00 Abel Vesa <abelvesa@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:36:12AM +0100, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
>> 2017-02-09 17:29 GMT+01:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>:
>> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:57:55PM +0000, Abel Vesa wrote:
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
>> >> +
>> >> +.macro __ftrace_regs_caller
>> >> +
>> >> + add ip, sp, #4 @ move in IP the value of SP as it was
>> >> + @ before the push {lr} of the mcount mechanism
>> >> + stmdb sp!, {ip,lr,pc}
>> >> + stmdb sp!, {r0-r11,lr}
>> >> +
>> >> + @ stack content at this point:
>> >> + @ 0 4 44 48 52 56 60 64
>> >> + @ R0 | R1 | ... | R11 | LR | SP + 4 | LR | PC | previous LR |
>> >
>> > How important is this to be close to "struct pt_regs" ? Do we care about
>> > r12 being "wrong" ? The other issue is that pt_regs is actually 72
>> > bytes in size, not 68 bytes. So, does that mean we end up inappropriately
>> > leaking some of the kernel stack to userspace through ftrace?
>> >
>> > It's possible to save all the registers like this if we need to provide
>> > a complete picture of the register set at function entry:
>> >
>> > str ip, [sp, #-16]!
>> > add ip, sp, #20
>> > stmia sp, {ip, lr, pc}
>> > stmdb sp!, {r0 - r11}
>> >
>> > However, is that even correct - don't we want pt_regs' LR and PC to be
>> > related to the function call itself? The "previous LR" as you describe
>> > it is where the called function (the one that is being traced) will
>> > return to. The current LR at this point is the address within the
>> > traced function. So actually I think this is more strictly correct, if
>> > I'm understanding the intention here correctly:
>> >
>> > str ip, [sp, #S_IP - PT_REGS_SIZE]! @ save current IP
>> > ldr ip, [sp, #PT_REGS_SIZE - S_IP] @ get LR at traced function entry
>> > str lr, [sp, #S_PC - S_IP] @ save current LR as PC
>> > str ip, [sp, #S_LR - S_IP] @ save traced function return
>> > add ip, sp, #PT_REGS_SIZE - S_IP + 4
>> > str ip, [sp, #S_SP - SP_IP] @ save stack pointer at function entry
>> > stmdb sp!, {r0 - r11}
>> > @ clear CPSR and old_r0 words
>> > mov r3, #0
>> > str r3, [sp, #S_PSR]
>> > str r3, [sp, #S_OLD_R0]
>> >
>> > However, that has the side effect of misaligning the stack (the stack
>> > needs to be aligned to 8 bytes). So, if we decide we don't care about
>> > the saved LR value (except as a mechanism to preserve it across the
>> > call into the ftrace code):
>> >
>> > str ip, [sp, #S_IP - PT_REGS_SIZE + 4]!
>> > str lr, [sp, #S_PC - S_IP]
>> > ldr lr, [sp, #PT_REGS_SIZE - 4 - S_IP]
>> > add ip, sp, #PT_REGS_SIZE - S_IP
>> > stmib sp, {ip, lr}
>> > stmdb sp!, {r0 - r11}
>> > @ clear CPSR and old_r0 words
>> > mov r3, #0
>> > str r3, [sp, #S_PSR]
>> > str r3, [sp, #S_OLD_R0]
>> >
>> > and the return would be:
>> >
>> > ldmia sp, {r0 - pc}
>> >
>> > That all said - maybe someone from the ftrace community can comment on
>> > how much of pt_regs is actually necessary here?
>>
>> I would suggest the following:
>> r0-r11: filled with current values.
>> r12 : the value of r12 doesn't matter (Intra-procedure call scratch
>> reg), we can either save it or not.
>> r13 - sp: the value as it was when the instrumented function was
>> entered. in the mcount case, it's the current sp value - 4, otherwise
>> it'f sp -4
>> r14 - lr: the value as it was when the instrumented function was
>> entered. first element in stack or available in frame depending on
>> GCC's version (mcount vs __gnu_mcount_nc)
>> r15 - pc : the address after the modified instruction (value of lr
>> when the ftrace caller is entered)
>>
> So basically you're saying: save all regs, r0 through r15, except r12.
> Based on that, I think it's easier to save all of them and then restore
> all of them except r12. Plus, you have to take into consideration all
> the possible users of ftrace with regs. At some point some implementation
> of ftrace_regs_call will probably need the value from r12.
>> I don't think we need CSPR and ORIG_r0.
> I think we do. As I said before, because PT_REGS is 72 and some function
> might (in the future) make use of CSPR or ORIG_r0, to ensure there is no
> stack corruption taking place, we have to provide whole pt_regs, that is
> 72 (including CSPR and ORIG_r0). Plus, the stack alignment thing Russell
> mentioned would be fixed.
You're right for the size of the structure. For the content, I don't
think we need all of them but it won't hurt to save more than
necessary.
>
> The only problem I don't have a solution for at this point is OLD_LR (or previous LR
> as it is called in this patch). If we take the approach described earlier,

previous LR is the lr when the instrumented function is entered, it
should be stored in pt_regs as r14

> we need to add to pt_regs the OLD_LR which I really don't like because it is
> breaking the whole purpose of pt_regs (it should only contain one copy of each reg,
> though it already has the ORIG_r0 in it) and will also break the stack alignment.
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
>> > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
>> > according to speedtest.net.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-10 17:25    [W:0.135 / U:26.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site