On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> A preempted function might not have had a chance to save the frame
> pointer to the stack yet, which can result in its caller getting skipped
> on a stack trace.
>
> Add a flag to indicate when the task has been preempted so that stack
> dum
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > A preempted function might not have had a chance to save the frame
> > pointer to the stack yet, which can result in its caller getting skipped
> > on a stack trace.
> >
>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > A preempted function might not have had a chance to save the frame
>> > pointer to the stack yet, which can resu
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:19:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > A preempted function might not ha
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:19:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:32:53PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:19:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:53A
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:32:53PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:19:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Josh Poi
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > NMI, MCE and interrupts aren't a problem because they have dedicated
> > stacks, which are easy to detect. If the tasks' stack is on an
> > exception stack or an irq stack, we consider it unreliable.
>
> Only on x86_64.
Well, MCEs are more or less
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Poimboeuf 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 det
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:11:45AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > NMI, MCE and interrupts aren't a problem because they have dedicated
> > > stacks, which are easy to detect. If the tasks' stack is on an
> > > exception stack or an irq stack, we consi
On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" 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 wrote:
> > > I think the easiest way to make it work would be to modify the idtentry
> > > macro to put all the idt entries in
On Apr 29, 2016 3:11 PM, "Jiri Kosina" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > > NMI, MCE and interrupts aren't a problem because they have dedicated
> > > stacks, which are easy to detect. If the tasks' stack is on an
> > > exception stack or an irq stack, we consider it unr
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" 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
> > > wrote:
> > > >> I suppose we could try to rejig
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Poim
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:41PM -070
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf"
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Another idea to detect missing frames: for each return address on the
> > stack,
> > ensure there's a corresponding "call " instruction immediately
> > preceding
> > the return location, where matches what's on the stack.
>
> Hmm, interesting.
>
> I hope your
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:39AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700
On Mon, 2 May 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> FWIW, I just tried this:
>
> static bool is_entry_text(unsigned long addr)
> {
> return addr >= (unsigned long)__entry_text_start &&
> addr < (unsigned long)__entry_text_end;
> }
>
> it works. So the entry code is already annotated reason
On Mon, 2 May 2016, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > FWIW, I just tried this:
> >
> > static bool is_entry_text(unsigned long addr)
> > {
> > return addr >= (unsigned long)__entry_text_start &&
> > addr < (unsigned long)__entry_text_end;
> > }
> >
> > it works. So the entry code is already an
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
>> > FWIW, I just tried this:
>> >
>> > static bool is_entry_text(unsigned long addr)
>> > {
>> > return addr >= (unsigned long)__entry_text_start &&
>> > addr < (unsigned long)__entry_text_en
From: Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: 02 May 2016 19:13
...
> I hope your plans include rewriting the current stack unwinder
> completely. The thing in print_context_stack is (a)
> hard-to-understand and hard-to-modify crap and (b) is called in a loop
> from another file using totally ridiculous conventio
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:37:41PM -070
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf"
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:39:51PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Note this example is with today's unwinder. It could be made smarter to
> > get the RIP from the pt_regs so the '?' could be removed from
> > copy_page_to_iter().
> >
> >
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:39:51PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > Note this example is with today's unwinder. It could be made smarter to
>> > get the RIP from the pt_regs so th
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:41:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:39:51PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > Note this example is with today's
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:41:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:39:51PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poi
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:59:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:41:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:39:51P
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Apr 29, 2016 3:41 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf"
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think it would be negligible, at least for interrupts, since
> interrupts are already extremely expensive. But I don't love adding
> assembly code that makes them even slower. The real thing I dislike
> about this approach is that it's not a normal
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> I think it would be negligible, at least for interrupts, since
>> interrupts are already extremely expensive. But I don't love adding
>> assembly code that makes them even slower. The real thin
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 02:34:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:52:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:08:50PM -0700
On May 23, 2016 7:28 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> > Maybe I'm coming around to liking this idea.
>
> Ok, good :-)
>
> > In an ideal world (DWARF support, high-quality unwinder, nice pretty
> > printer, etc), unwinding across a kernel exception would look like:
> >
> > - some_func
> > - some_oth
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:52:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On May 23, 2016 7:28 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> > > Maybe I'm coming around to liking this idea.
> >
> > Ok, good :-)
> >
> > > In an ideal world (DWARF support, high-quality unwinder, nice pretty
> > > printer, etc), unwinding
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:52:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On May 23, 2016 7:28 PM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
>> > > Maybe I'm coming around to liking this idea.
>> >
>> > Ok, good :-)
>> >
>> > > In an ideal world (DWARF support, hi
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > So I got a chance to look at this some more. I'm thinking that to make
> > this feature more consistently useful, we shouldn't only annotate
> > pt_regs frames for calls to handlers; other calls should be annotated as
> > well: p
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > So I got a chance to look at this some more. I'm thinking that to make
>> > this feature more consistently useful, we shouldn't only annotate
>> > pt_regs frames for cal
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:26:21AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > So I got a chance to look at this some more. I'm thinking that to make
> >> > this feature more co
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:26:21AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >
>> > So are you suggesting something like:
>> >
>> > .macro ENTRY_CALL func pt_regs_offset=0
>> > call \func
>> > 1: .pushsection .entry_calls, "a"
>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Andy,
>
> So I got a chance to look at this some more. I'm thinking that to make
> this feature more consistently useful, we shouldn't only annotate
> pt_regs frames for calls to handlers; other calls should be annotated as
> well: preempt_
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:09:11PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Andy,
> >
> > So I got a chance to look at this some more. I'm thinking that to make
> > this feature more consistently useful, we shouldn't only annotate
> > pt_regs fram
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:17:25PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:26:21AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So are you suggesting something like:
> >> >
> >> > .macro ENTRY_CALL func pt_regs_o
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:17:25PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:26:21AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So are you suggesting somethin
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:35:29AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > So which is the least-bad option? To summarize:
> >
> > 1) task flag(s) for preemption and page faults
> >
> > 2) turn pt_regs into a stack frame
> >
> > 3) annotate all calls from entry code in a table
> >
> > 4) encode
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:31:32PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:35:29AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > So which is the least-bad option? To summarize:
> > >
> > > 1) task flag(s) for preemption and page faults
> > >
> > > 2) turn pt_regs into a stack frame
> >
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:31:32PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:35:29AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > > So which is the least-bad option? To summarize:
>> > >
>> > > 1) task flag(s) for preemption and pa
47 matches
Mail list logo