Subject: [PATCH v5 2/6] arm64: ftrace: fix a stack tracer's output under function graph tracer

From: [email-masked] (AKASHI Takahiro)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:23:51 +0900

Jungseok,

On 11/14/2015 12:01 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> (+ Li Bin in CC)
>
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On 11/09/2015 11:04 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 3:44 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Akashi,
>>>
>>>> Function graph tracer modifies a return address (LR) in a stack frame
>>>> to hook a function return. This will result in many useless entries
>>>> (return_to_handler) showing up in a stack tracer's output.
>>>>
>>>> This patch replaces such entries with originals values preserved in
>>>> current->ret_stack[].
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <[email-masked]>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h |    2 ++
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c  |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
>>>> index c5534fa..3c60f37 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ struct dyn_arch_ftrace {
>>>>
>>>> extern unsigned long ftrace_graph_call;
>>>>
>>>> +extern void return_to_handler(void);
>>>> +
>>>> static inline unsigned long ftrace_call_adjust(unsigned long addr)
>>>> {
>>>> 	/*
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>>> index ccb6078..5fd3477 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>>>   */
>>>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>> #include <linux/export.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/ftrace.h>
>>>> #include <linux/sched.h>
>>>> #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
>>>>
>>>> @@ -73,6 +74,9 @@ struct stack_trace_data {
>>>> 	struct stack_trace *trace;
>>>> 	unsigned int no_sched_functions;
>>>> 	unsigned int skip;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>>>> +	unsigned int ret_stack_index;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static int save_trace(struct stackframe *frame, void *d)
>>>> @@ -81,6 +85,20 @@ static int save_trace(struct stackframe *frame, void *d)
>>>> 	struct stack_trace *trace = data->trace;
>>>> 	unsigned long addr = frame->pc;
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>>>> +	if (addr == (unsigned long)return_to_handler - AARCH64_INSN_SIZE) {
>>>
>>> not if (adds == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)?
>>>
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * This is a case where function graph tracer has
>>>> +		 * modified a return address (LR) in a stack frame
>>>> +		 * to hook a function return.
>>>> +		 * So replace it to an original value.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		frame->pc = addr =
>>>> +			current->ret_stack[data->ret_stack_index--].ret
>>>> +							- AARCH64_INSN_SIZE;
>>>
>>> Ditto. not without AARCH64_INSN_SIZE?
>>>
>>> I've observed many return_to_handler without the changes.
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> You're right!
>> I thought I had tested the patches, but...
>>
>>>> +	}
>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER */
>>>> +
>>>> 	if (data->no_sched_functions && in_sched_functions(addr))
>>>> 		return 0;
>>>> 	if (data->skip) {
>>>> @@ -100,6 +118,9 @@ void save_stack_trace_tsk(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stack_trace *trace)
>>>>
>>>> 	data.trace = trace;
>>>> 	data.skip = trace->skip;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>>>> +	data.ret_stack_index = current->curr_ret_stack;
>>>
>>> Can I get an idea on why current->curr_ret_stack is used instead of
>>> tsk->curr_ret_stack?
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out.
>> Will fix it although it works without a change since save_stack_trace_sp() is
>> called only in a 'current task' context.
>>
>> -Takahiro AKASHI
>
> As reading function_graph related codes in arm64, I've realized that this issue
> can be observed from three different sources.
>
>   (A) stack tracer of ftrace
>   (B) perf call trace (perf record with '-g' option)
>   (C) dump_backtrace
>
> The issue is orthogonal to the commit, e306dfd06f, and its revert. It seems that
> Steve's approach, 7ee991fbc6, would be valid on arm64 and cover all three cases.
> It does in case of x86. Li Bin posted a patch [1] to solve the issue from case(C)
> in Steve's way. This hunk deals with case(A) with its own implementation. But,
> case(B) is not covered yet. It can be reproduced easily with the following steps.
>
>   # echo function_graph > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/current_tracer
>   # perf record -g sleep 2
>   # perf report --call-graph
>
> So, how about considering Steve's approach on arm64 and then covering all three
> cases with it? It would be good in code consolidation perspective. Note that the
> idea is applied to arch/sh.

Thank you for pointing this out.
I've already fixed all the cases, (A),(B) and (C), but in a different way.
I think that the point is that we should take care of frame->pc under function
graph tracer in one place, that is, unwind_frame().

After a bit more testing, I will submit a new version.
Then please review it again.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> Best Regards
> Jungseok Lee
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/15/368
>