lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fgraph: record function return value
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:11:56PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 02:57:01PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > This patch adds a new trace option 'funcgraph-retval' and is disabled by
> > default. When this option is enabled, fgraph tracer will show the return
> > value of each function. This is useful to find/analyze a original error
> > source in a call graph.
> >
> > One limitation is that kernel doesn't know the prototype of functions. So
> > fgraph assumes all functions have a retvalue of type int. You must ignore
> > the value of *void* function. And if the retvalue looks like an error code
> > then both hexadecimal and decimal number are displayed.
>
> This sounds more confusing than helpful, and it sounds like this has
> overlap with FTRACE_WITH_REGS functionality.
>
Acctually this is similar to Return Probes. The kprobe has same
situation and it uses regs_return_value() to get retvalue. On x86 it is:
static inline long regs_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
return PT_REGS_AX(regs);
}

on arm it is:
static inline long regs_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
return regs->ARM_r0;
}
Due to lack of prototype info we cannot handle complex types.

FTRACE_WITH_REGS saves all general registers but here only one.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> > index 81b8eb5c4633..223f4ad269d4 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> > @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ ENTRY(return_to_handler)
> > stp x4, x5, [sp, #32]
> > stp x6, x7, [sp, #48]
> >
> > + mov x1, x0 // return value
> > mov x0, x29 // parent's fp
> > bl ftrace_return_to_handler// addr = ftrace_return_to_hander(fp);
> > mov x30, x0 // restore the original return address
>
> What about indirect return values? Those go via x8.
>
> Additionally, in some cases (e.g. static functions with cross-function
> optimization), the compiler might not follow the usual PCS, so the
> return value might not be in x0 regardless. Maybe such functions aren't
> hooked by ftrace today?
I think these functions have been optimized out so ftrace will not trace
them.

>
> Generally, I don't think that this is going to be reliable.
>
> > +config HAVE_FTRACE_RETVAL
> > + bool
> > +
> > config HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> > bool
> > help
> > @@ -160,6 +163,7 @@ config FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > depends on HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > depends on FUNCTION_TRACER
> > depends on !X86_32 || !CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> > + select HAVE_FTRACE_RETVAL if (X86 || ARM)
>
> ... but not arm64?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

--
Thanks,
Changbin Du

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 17:07    [W:0.069 / U:3.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site