arm64 sigreturn unwinding fixes
Will Deacon
maintainerv2 cover arm64 sigreturn unwinding fixes
Hi again,
Hot off the press, here's v2 of the sigreturn unwinding fixes I sent out early on today:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Changes since v1 include:
* Retain all CFI directives, as they are needed for unwinding after all
* Add tonnes of comments
* Squash the last two patches
* Use SYM_CODE_{START,END} instead of open-coding it
* Update Fixes: tag
Please have a look, and give it a spin with your favourite unwinder.
Ta,
Will
--->8
Will Deacon (2):
arm64: vdso: Don't prefix sigreturn trampoline with a BTI C
instruction
arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S | 16 +++++----- 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Signature · 7 lines
2.26.2.761.g0e0b3e54be-goog _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon
maintainerPATCH v2 1/2 arm64: vdso: Don't prefix sigreturn trampoline with a BTI C instruction
For better or worse, GDB relies on the exact instruction sequence in the VDSO sigreturn trampoline in order to unwind from signals correctly. Commit c91db232da48 ("arm64: vdso: Convert to modern assembler annotations") unfortunately added a BTI C instruction to the start of __kernel_rt_sigreturn, which breaks this check. Thankfully, it's also not required, since the trampoline is called from a RET instruction when returning from the signal handler
Remove the unnecessary BTI C instruction from __kernel_rt_sigreturn, and do the same for the 32-bit VDSO as well for good measure.
--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 11 +++++++++-- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S | 16 ++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +9 -2
@@ -15,7 +15,14 @@ .text nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) +/* + * GDB relies on being able to identify the sigreturn instruction sequence to + * unwind from signal handlers. We cannot, therefore, use SYM_FUNC_START() + * here, as it will emit a BTI C instruction and break the unwinder. Thankfully, + * this function is only ever called from a RET and so omitting the landing pad + * is perfectly fine. + */ +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) .cfi_startproc .cfi_signal_frame .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0
@@ -24,6 +31,6 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) mov x8, #__NR_rt_sigreturn svc #0 .cfi_endproc -SYM_FUNC_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) +SYM_CODE_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) emit_aarch64_feature_1_and
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S +8 -8
@@ -17,39 +17,39 @@ .save {r0-r15} .pad #COMPAT_SIGFRAME_REGS_OFFSET nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_sigreturn_arm) +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_sigreturn_arm) mov r7, #__NR_compat_sigreturn svc #0 .fnend -SYM_FUNC_END(__kernel_sigreturn_arm) +SYM_CODE_END(__kernel_sigreturn_arm) .fnstart .save {r0-r15} .pad #COMPAT_RT_SIGFRAME_REGS_OFFSET nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_arm) +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_arm) mov r7, #__NR_compat_rt_sigreturn svc #0 .fnend -SYM_FUNC_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_arm) +SYM_CODE_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_arm) .thumb .fnstart .save {r0-r15} .pad #COMPAT_SIGFRAME_REGS_OFFSET nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_sigreturn_thumb) +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_sigreturn_thumb) mov r7, #__NR_compat_sigreturn svc #0 .fnend -SYM_FUNC_END(__kernel_sigreturn_thumb) +SYM_CODE_END(__kernel_sigreturn_thumb) .fnstart .save {r0-r15} .pad #COMPAT_RT_SIGFRAME_REGS_OFFSET nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_thumb) +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_thumb) mov r7, #__NR_compat_rt_sigreturn svc #0 .fnend -SYM_FUNC_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_thumb) +SYM_CODE_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn_thumb)
Signature · 7 lines
2.26.2.761.g0e0b3e54be-goog _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: vdso: Don't prefix sigreturn trampoline with a BTI C instruction
Quoted 7 lines · Will Deacon
For better or worse, GDB relies on the exact instruction sequence in the VDSO sigreturn trampoline in order to unwind from signals correctly. Commit
c91db232da48("arm64: vdso: Convert to modern assembler annotations") unfortunately added a BTI C instruction to the start of__kernel_rt_sigreturn, which breaks this check. Thankfully, it's also not required, since the trampoline is called from a RET instruction when returning from the signal handler
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: vdso: Don't prefix sigreturn trampoline with a BTI C instruction
In reply to Will DeaconQuoted 28 lines · Will Deacon
For better or worse, GDB relies on the exact instruction sequence in the VDSO sigreturn trampoline in order to unwind from signals correctly. Commit
c91db232da48("arm64: vdso: Convert to modern assembler annotations") unfortunately added a BTI C instruction to the start of__kernel_rt_sigreturn, which breaks this check. Thankfully, it's also not required, since the trampoline is called from a RET instruction when returning from the signal handlerRemove the unnecessary BTI C instruction from
__kernel_rt_sigreturn, and do the same for the 32-bit VDSO as well for good measure.Cc Dave Martin <[email protected]>Cc Mark Brown <[email protected]>Cc Daniel Kiss <[email protected]>Cc Tamas Zsoldos <[email protected]>Fixes c91db232da48 ("arm64: vdso: Convert to modern assembler annotations")Signed-off-by Will Deacon <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 11 +++++++++-- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S | 16 ++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +0
-0@@ -15,7 +15,14 @@ .text
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 24
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +7
-1nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) +/* + * GDB relies on being able to identify the sigreturn instruction sequence to + * unwind from signal handlers. We cannot, therefore, use SYM_FUNC_START() + * here, as it will emit a BTI C instruction and break the unwinder. Thankfully, + * this function is only ever called from a RET and so omitting the landing pad + * is perfectly fine. + */
Can we cross-reference or duplicate (perhaps abridged) this comment for vdso32?
Can we also fix the comment by the definition of SYM_FUNC_START()?
SYM_FUNC_START() supersedes ENTRY only for PCS-conformant function entry points. Any code with a wacky special-case interface should not not be using this.
[...]
Quoted 17 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +2
-1+SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) .cfi_startproc .cfi_signal_frame .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0@@ -24,6 +31,6 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) mov x8, #__NR_rt_sigreturn svc #0 .cfi_endproc -SYM_FUNC_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) +SYM_CODE_END(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) emit_aarch64_feature_1_andarch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S +0
-0
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S line 20
Quoted 5 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S +1
-1@@ -17,39 +17,39 @@ .save {r0-r15} .pad #COMPAT_SIGFRAME_REGS_OFFSET nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_sigreturn_arm) +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_sigreturn_arm)
...although do we actually need this? 32-bit doesn't have BTI.
But for the reasons given above, this is not a "function" and so SYM_FUNC_START() is trap for future maintenance even if it makes no difference now.
[...]
Either way,
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: vdso: Don't prefix sigreturn trampoline with a BTI C instruction
Quoted 30 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 29 lines · Will Deacon
For better or worse, GDB relies on the exact instruction sequence in the VDSO sigreturn trampoline in order to unwind from signals correctly. Commit
c91db232da48("arm64: vdso: Convert to modern assembler annotations") unfortunately added a BTI C instruction to the start of__kernel_rt_sigreturn, which breaks this check. Thankfully, it's also not required, since the trampoline is called from a RET instruction when returning from the signal handlerRemove the unnecessary BTI C instruction from
__kernel_rt_sigreturn, and do the same for the 32-bit VDSO as well for good measure.Cc Dave Martin <[email protected]>Cc Mark Brown <[email protected]>Cc Daniel Kiss <[email protected]>Cc Tamas Zsoldos <[email protected]>Fixes c91db232da48 ("arm64: vdso: Convert to modern assembler annotations")Signed-off-by Will Deacon <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 11 +++++++++-- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S | 16 ++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +0
-0@@ -15,7 +15,14 @@ .text
Quoted 12 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 24
Quoted 9 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +7
-1nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) +/* + * GDB relies on being able to identify the sigreturn instruction sequence to + * unwind from signal handlers. We cannot, therefore, use SYM_FUNC_START() + * here, as it will emit a BTI C instruction and break the unwinder. Thankfully, + * this function is only ever called from a RET and so omitting the landing pad + * is perfectly fine. + */Can we cross-reference or duplicate (perhaps abridged) this comment for vdso32?
Yes, that's not a bad idea. I'll add a comment to the top of that file.
Quoted 1 line
Can we also fix the comment by the definition of
SYM_FUNC_START()?
I'll tweak it slightly for v3.
Quoted 13 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S line 20
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/sigreturn.S +1
-1@@ -17,39 +17,39 @@ .save {r0-r15} .pad #COMPAT_SIGFRAME_REGS_OFFSET nop -SYM_FUNC_START(__kernel_sigreturn_arm) +SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_sigreturn_arm)...although do we actually need this? 32-bit doesn't have BTI.
Quoted 3 lines
But for the reasons given above, this is not a "function" and so
SYM_FUNC_START()is trap for future maintenance even if it makes no difference now.
Right, it's just done for consistency on the 32-bit side.
Quoted 3 lines
Either way,
Reviewed-by Dave Martin <[email protected]>
Thanks!
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon
maintainerPATCH v2 2/2 arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
In reply to Will DeaconDaniel reports that the .cfi_startproc is misplaced for the sigreturn trampoline, which causes LLVM's unwinder to misbehave:
| I run into this with LLVM’s unwinder.
| This combination was always broken.
This prompted Dave to question our use of CFI directives more generally, and I ended up going down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how this very poorly documented stuff gets used.
Move the CFI directives so that the "mysterious NOP" is included in the .cfi_{start,end}proc block and add a bunch of comments so that I can save myself another headache in future.
--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +33 -7
@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@ /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ /* * Sigreturn trampoline for returning from a signal when the SA_RESTORER - * flag is not set. + * flag is not set. It serves primarily as a hall of shame for crappy + * unwinders and features an exciting but mysterious NOP instruction. + * + * It's also fragile as hell, so please think twice before changing anything + * in here. * * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Limited *
@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP. + */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */ + .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8 + +/* + * This mysterious NOP is required for some unwinders (e.g. libc++) that + * unconditionally subtract one from the result of _Unwind_GetIP() in order to + * identify the calling function. + * Hack borrowed from arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso64/sigtramp.S. + */ + nop // Mysterious NOP + /* * GDB relies on being able to identify the sigreturn instruction sequence to * unwind from signal handlers. We cannot, therefore, use SYM_FUNC_START()
@@ -23,11 +54,6 @@ * is perfectly fine. */ SYM_CODE_START(__kernel_rt_sigreturn) - .cfi_startproc - .cfi_signal_frame - .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 - .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 - .cfi_offset x30, 1 * 8 mov x8, #__NR_rt_sigreturn svc #0 .cfi_endproc
Signature · 7 lines
2.26.2.761.g0e0b3e54be-goog _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
Quoted 53 lines · Will Deacon
Daniel reports that the .cfi_startproc is misplaced for the sigreturn trampoline, which causes LLVM's unwinder to misbehave:
| I run into this with LLVM’s unwinder.
| This combination was always broken.This prompted Dave to question our use of CFI directives more generally, and I ended up going down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how this very poorly documented stuff gets used.
Move the CFI directives so that the "mysterious NOP" is included in the .cfi_{start,end}proc block and add a bunch of comments so that I can save myself another headache in future.
Cc Tamas Zsoldos <[email protected]>Reported-by Dave Martin <[email protected]>Reported-by Daniel Kiss <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Will Deacon <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +14
-2@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@ /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ /* * Sigreturn trampoline for returning from a signal when the SA_RESTORER - * flag is not set. + * flag is not set. It serves primarily as a hall of shame for crappy + * unwinders and features an exciting but mysterious NOP instruction. + * + * It's also fragile as hell, so please think twice before changing anything + * in here. * * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Limited *@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP.
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +10
-0+ */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */ + .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8
We should also give rationale for why we don't describe how to recover other regs here. At a signal, every reg is potentially live with data essential to the backtrace, so custom unwind entries further up the stack may unwind badly after trying to unwind out of the signal handler.
Otherwise, looks reasonable -- it should be easier now to understand next time!
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
Quoted 22 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 21 lines · Will Deacon
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +16
-1@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP. + */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +3
-0+ .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8We should also give rationale for why we don't describe how to recover other regs here. At a signal, every reg is potentially live with data essential to the backtrace, so custom unwind entries further up the stack may unwind badly after trying to unwind out of the signal handler.
Hmm, I'm not sure I get what you're asking for. We can't recover the other registers even if we tried, can we? I think the only way to get a reliable backtrace here is not to clobber the framepointer.
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
Quoted 32 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 22 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 21 lines · Will Deacon
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +16
-1@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP. + */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +3
-0+ .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8We should also give rationale for why we don't describe how to recover other regs here. At a signal, every reg is potentially live with data essential to the backtrace, so custom unwind entries further up the stack may unwind badly after trying to unwind out of the signal handler.
Quoted 3 lines
Hmm, I'm not sure I get what you're asking for. We can't recover the other registers even if we tried, can we? I think the only way to get a reliable backtrace here is not to clobber the framepointer.
A caller somewhere up the stack could have stashed stuff in nonstandard places, with a custom unwind entry that doesn't use x29 in the usual way.
If x29 and x30 were stashed in x8 and x9, say, then the unwinder needs to restore x8 and x9 correctly before that frame is reached. Dwarf unwind tables are expressive enough to describe how to unwind such a
frames: the directives work on all the registers, not just x29, lr.
For this kind of unwinding scenario to wokr, the userspace environment would need to provide correct unwind info for _everything_ rather than relying on the frame chain on the stack alone, so this scenario isn't applicable to C.
I'm not saying we should try to support this, but a comment to indicate what we are and are not trying to do might be a good idea.
How about something along these lines:
/*
* Don't try to provide unwind into for the other regs of the
* interrupted context here. C/C++ based runtimes don't rely on
* this for unwinding in practice. Debuggers need more, but they
* already have baked-in knowledge about how to unwind out of
* signals.
*/
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
Quoted 37 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 32 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 22 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 21 lines · Will Deacon
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +16
-1@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP. + */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +3
-0+ .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8We should also give rationale for why we don't describe how to recover other regs here. At a signal, every reg is potentially live with data essential to the backtrace, so custom unwind entries further up the stack may unwind badly after trying to unwind out of the signal handler.
Quoted 3 lines
Hmm, I'm not sure I get what you're asking for. We can't recover the other registers even if we tried, can we? I think the only way to get a reliable backtrace here is not to clobber the framepointer.
Quoted 7 lines
A caller somewhere up the stack could have stashed stuff in nonstandard places, with a custom unwind entry that doesn't use x29 in the usual way.
If x29 and x30 were stashed in x8 and x9, say, then the unwinder needs to restore x8 and x9 correctly before that frame is reached. Dwarf unwind tables are expressive enough to describe how to unwind such a
frames: the directives work on all the registers, not just x29, lr.
Understood, I just can't figure out how we could support that even if we wanted to. The only evidence we have of those registers is in the sigcontext, but that may have been modified by the time we end up in the return trampoline. Would we need to push the registers twice (i.e. expand the frame record to include the GPRs)? Not saying we should do this, just wondering what it would take.
Quoted 10 lines
For this kind of unwinding scenario to wokr, the userspace environment would need to provide correct unwind info for _everything_ rather than relying on the frame chain on the stack alone, so this scenario isn't applicable to C.
I'm not saying we should try to support this, but a comment to indicate what we are and are not trying to do might be a good idea.
How about something along these lines:
Quoted 7 lines
/*
* Don't try to provide unwind into for the other regs of the
* interrupted context here. C/C++ based runtimes don't rely on
* this for unwinding in practice. Debuggers need more, but they
* already have baked-in knowledge about how to unwind out of
* signals.
*/
I'll fold that in, thanks.
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
Quoted 46 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 37 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 32 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 22 lines · Dave Martin
Quoted 21 lines · Will Deacon
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +16
-1@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP. + */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +3
-0+ .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8We should also give rationale for why we don't describe how to recover other regs here. At a signal, every reg is potentially live with data essential to the backtrace, so custom unwind entries further up the stack may unwind badly after trying to unwind out of the signal handler.
Quoted 3 lines
Hmm, I'm not sure I get what you're asking for. We can't recover the other registers even if we tried, can we? I think the only way to get a reliable backtrace here is not to clobber the framepointer.
Quoted 7 lines
A caller somewhere up the stack could have stashed stuff in nonstandard places, with a custom unwind entry that doesn't use x29 in the usual way.
If x29 and x30 were stashed in x8 and x9, say, then the unwinder needs to restore x8 and x9 correctly before that frame is reached. Dwarf unwind tables are expressive enough to describe how to unwind such a
frames: the directives work on all the registers, not just x29, lr.
Quoted 6 lines
Understood, I just can't figure out how we could support that even if we wanted to. The only evidence we have of those registers is in the sigcontext, but that may have been modified by the time we end up in the return trampoline. Would we need to push the registers twice (i.e. expand the frame record to include the GPRs)? Not saying we should do this, just wondering what it would take.
No, it's inevitably best effort.
If the signal handler doesn't intend to return, than the backtrace may be nonsense anyway. The signal might result from the regs being garbage anyway, or the signal might be deliberate suicide by the "caller".
If the signal handler does intend to return normally, then it is responsible for manipulating the sigcontext in a way that doesn't break the interrupted code -- which implies that the backtrace will be valid, and also means that invasive non-atomic changes to the sigcontext are unlikely. Because we can't know the intent of the handler, no amount of pushing duplicates etc. can work 100% of the time.
The overwhelmingly common case of is that the signal handler doesn't mess with sigcontext at all, though. So we could probably restore the integer regs correctly for the common case.
Nonetheless, there are limitations. Dwarf unwind can't describe how to unwind the FPSIMD/SVE regs etc. We're really into debugger territory if we start to care about that stuff.
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 10 lines
For this kind of unwinding scenario to wokr, the userspace environment would need to provide correct unwind info for _everything_ rather than relying on the frame chain on the stack alone, so this scenario isn't applicable to C.
I'm not saying we should try to support this, but a comment to indicate what we are and are not trying to do might be a good idea.
How about something along these lines:
Quoted 7 lines
/*
* Don't try to provide unwind into for the other regs of the
* interrupted context here. C/C++ based runtimes don't rely on
* this for unwinding in practice. Debuggers need more, but they
* already have baked-in knowledge about how to unwind out of
* signals.
*/
Quoted 1 line
I'll fold that in, thanks.
Thanks. This just avoids having to ask the question again or go back over all the messy rationale above.
If someone _needs_ this to be extended in future, we can revisit it. But I hope not!
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
In reply to Will DeaconQuoted 53 lines · Will Deacon
Daniel reports that the .cfi_startproc is misplaced for the sigreturn trampoline, which causes LLVM's unwinder to misbehave:
| I run into this with LLVM’s unwinder.
| This combination was always broken.This prompted Dave to question our use of CFI directives more generally, and I ended up going down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how this very poorly documented stuff gets used.
Move the CFI directives so that the "mysterious NOP" is included in the .cfi_{start,end}proc block and add a bunch of comments so that I can save myself another headache in future.
Cc Tamas Zsoldos <[email protected]>Reported-by Dave Martin <[email protected]>Reported-by Daniel Kiss <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Will Deacon <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +14
-2@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@ /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ /* * Sigreturn trampoline for returning from a signal when the SA_RESTORER - * flag is not set. + * flag is not set. It serves primarily as a hall of shame for crappy + * unwinders and features an exciting but mysterious NOP instruction. + * + * It's also fragile as hell, so please think twice before changing anything + * in here. * * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Limited *@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP.
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +10
-0+ */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/* + * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */ + .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8
Oops, just spotted this bug: second entry should be x30.
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: vdso: Fix CFI directives in sigreturn trampoline
Quoted 58 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 57 lines · Will Deacon
Daniel reports that the .cfi_startproc is misplaced for the sigreturn trampoline, which causes LLVM's unwinder to misbehave:
| I run into this with LLVM’s unwinder.
| This combination was always broken.This prompted Dave to question our use of CFI directives more generally, and I ended up going down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how this very poorly documented stuff gets used.
Move the CFI directives so that the "mysterious NOP" is included in the .cfi_{start,end}proc block and add a bunch of comments so that I can save myself another headache in future.
Cc Tamas Zsoldos <[email protected]>Reported-by Dave Martin <[email protected]>Reported-by Daniel Kiss <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Will Deacon <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +18
-2@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@ /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ /* * Sigreturn trampoline for returning from a signal when the SA_RESTORER - * flag is not set. + * flag is not set. It serves primarily as a hall of shame for crappy + * unwinders and features an exciting but mysterious NOP instruction. + * + * It's also fragile as hell, so please think twice before changing anything + * in here. * * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Limited *@@ -14,7 +18,34 @@ .text - nop +/* Ensure that the mysterious NOP can be associated with a function. */ + .cfi_startproc + +/* + * .cfi_signal_frame causes the corresponding Frame Description Entry in the + * .eh_frame section to be annotated as a signal frame. This allows DWARF + * unwinders (e.g. libstdc++) to implement _Unwind_GetIPInfo(), which permits + * unwinding out of the signal trampoline without the need for the mysterious + * NOP. + */ + .cfi_signal_frame + +/*
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S line 39
Quoted 6 lines
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/sigreturn.S +6
-0+ * Tell the unwinder where to locate the frame record linking back to the + * interrupted context. + */ + .cfi_def_cfa x29, 0 + .cfi_offset x29, 0 * 8 + .cfi_offset x29, 1 * 8Oops, just spotted this bug: second entry should be x30.
Dang, didn't spot that. Yes.
Must have been momory corruption in your editor...
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel