public inbox for elfutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: Ulf Hermann <ulf.hermann@qt.io>
Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: frame unwinding patches
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1492631295.21701.180.camel@klomp.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ca107eef-9f1a-b6d6-3fe5-81470eb4be4e@qt.io>

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:16 +0200, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> > I do agree with Jan that frame pointer unwinding is notoriously
> > untrustworthy. Even with some sanity checks it is hard to know whether
> > you are doing a correct unwind. gdb gets away with it through pretty
> > advanced frame sniffers, which take a lot of low-level compiler
> > generation knowledge to get correct (and even then...). You only restore
> > the pc, stack and frame pointer registers (maybe incorrectly). So
> > afterwards, even if you got valid CFI data you might be stuck.
> 
> Yes, especially with mixed stack traces, where part of the stack has
> CFI and part of it doesn't, we quickly run into guesswork. I've
> regenerated the binaries as suggested, with the result being that
> raise() from libc actually has CFI, but doesn't set a frame pointer.
> So, the frame pointer unwinder can find raise() in the link register,
> but it sets up the FP register with the wrong value. Then raise() is
> unwound using CFI, which mixes up the registers some more. At that
> point we're lost. I don't see an easy way out of this.

That might just mean that the testcase is slightly unrealistic.
Getting a reliable backtrace through signal handlers when not having
full CFI is probably not something we can expect to work. That doesn't
mean having a frame pointer based fallback is a bad thing. We probably
should find a more realistic testcase. And maybe in the future add an
interface to allow people to unwind through "pure CFI" or mixed mode
with frame markers that tell the caller whether the registers can be
trusted or not.

> I will keep a version of the frame unwinding for perfparser as it's
> still better than not unwinding at all, but I do understand that it's
> not really suitable for mainline elfutils.

Really I do think it would be nice to have. I certainly didn't mean it
isn't suitable for mainline. We just should be realistic about the
expectations. IMHO if at all possible we should get this upstream so you
don't have to carry extra patches.

Cheers,

Mark

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-19 19:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-15 23:34 Mark Wielaard
2017-02-15 23:34 ` [PATCH 2/3] Add frame pointer unwinding as fallback on arm Mark Wielaard
2017-02-15 23:34 ` [PATCH 1/3] Add frame pointer unwinding as fallback on x86_64 Mark Wielaard
2017-02-15 23:34 ` [PATCH 3/3] Add frame pointer unwinding for aarch64 Mark Wielaard
2017-02-16  9:13 ` frame unwinding patches Ulf Hermann
2017-04-03  9:00 ` Milian Wolff
2017-04-03  9:03   ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-03 21:14     ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-07 10:27       ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-11 10:16         ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-19 19:48           ` Mark Wielaard [this message]
2017-04-20  9:26             ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-25 12:50               ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 12:54                 ` [PATCH 1/5] Revert "Optionally allow unknown symbols in the backtrace tests" Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 12:50                   ` [PATCH 2/5] tests: Add core backtracegen chec and regenerate ppc32 backtrace test files Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 13:04                     ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-25 12:55                   ` [PATCH 3/5] Add frame pointer unwinding as fallback on x86_64 Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 13:05                     ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-25 12:56                   ` [PATCH 4/5] Add i386 frame pointer unwinder Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 13:38                     ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-25 12:56                   ` [PATCH 1/5] Revert "Optionally allow unknown symbols in the backtrace tests" Ulf Hermann
2017-04-25 13:11                   ` [PATCH 5/5] Add frame pointer unwinding for aarch64 Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 21:55                     ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-25 22:13                     ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-25 22:23                       ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-26 15:24                         ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-27 14:02                           ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-27 14:29                             ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-27 14:35                               ` Ulf Hermann
2017-04-27 15:09                                 ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-27 15:42                                   ` Ulf Hermann
2017-05-03  8:46                                 ` Mark Wielaard
2017-04-26 15:20                 ` frame unwinding patches Ulf Hermann
2017-04-03 21:23   ` Jan Kratochvil
2017-04-04  7:40     ` Milian Wolff
2017-04-04  7:55       ` Jan Kratochvil
2017-04-04  8:25         ` Ulf Hermann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1492631295.21701.180.camel@klomp.org \
    --to=mark@klomp.org \
    --cc=elfutils-devel@sourceware.org \
    --cc=ulf.hermann@qt.io \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).