On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think the easiest way to make it work would be to modify the idtentry > > > macro to put all the idt entries in a dedicated section. Then the > > > unwinder could easily detect any calls from that code. > > > > That would work. Would it make sense to do the same for the irq entries? > > Yes, I think so. > > > >> I suppose we could try to rejigger the code so that rbp points to > > >> pt_regs or similar. > > > > > > I think we should avoid doing something like that because it would break > > > gdb and all the other unwinders who don't know about it. > > > > How so? > > > > Currently, rbp in the entry code is meaningless. I'm suggesting that, > > when we do, for example, 'call \do_sym' in idtentry, we point rbp to > > the pt_regs. Currently it points to something stale (which the > > dump_stack code might be relying on. Hmm.) But it's probably also > > safe to assume that if you unwind to the 'call \do_sym', then pt_regs > > is the next thing on the stack, so just doing the section thing would > > work. > > Yes, rbp is meaningless on the entry from user space. But if an > in-kernel interrupt occurs (e.g. page fault, preemption) and you have > nested entry, rbp keeps its old value, right? So the unwinder can walk > past the nested entry frame and keep going until it gets to the original > entry. Yes. It would be nice if we could do better, though, and actually notice the pt_regs and identify the entry. For example, I'd love to see "page fault, RIP=xyz" printed in the middle of a stack dump on a crash. Also, I think that just following rbp links will lose the actual function that took the page fault (or whatever function pt_regs->ip actually points to). > > > We should really re-add DWARF some day. > > Working on it :-) Excellent. Have you looked at my vdso unwinding test at all? If we could do something similar for the kernel, IMO it would make testing much more pleasant. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
