On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 01:33:13PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 04:57:43PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> > +There are several ways an architecture may identify kernel code which is deemed
> > +unreliable to unwind from, e.g.
> > +
> > +* Using metadata created by objtool, with such code annotated with
> > + SYM_CODE_{START,END} or STACKFRAME_NON_STANDARD().
>
> I'm not sure why SYM_CODE_{START,END} is mentioned here, but it doesn't
> necessarily mean the code is unreliable, and objtool doesn't treat it as
> such. Its mention can probably be removed unless there was some other
> point I'm missing.
>
> Also, s/STACKFRAME/STACK_FRAME/
When I wrote this, I was under the impression that (for x86) code marked
as SYM_CODE_{START,END} wouldn't be considered as a function by objtool.
Specifically SYM_FUNC_END() marks the function with SYM_T_FUNC whereas
SYM_CODE_END() marks it with SYM_T_NONE, and IIRC I thought that objtool
only generated ORC for SYM_T_FUNC functions, and hence anything else
would be considered not unwindable due to the absence of ORC.
Just to check, is that understanding for x86 correct, or did I get that
wrong?
If that's right, it might be worth splitting this into two points, e.g.
| * Using metadata created by objtool, with such code annotated with
| STACKFRAME_NON_STANDARD().
|
|
| * Using ELF symbol attributes, with such code annotated with
| SYM_CODE_{START,END}, and not having a function type.
If that's wrong, I suspect there are latent issues here?
Thanks,
Mark.
