Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:04:25 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 24/25] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:04:22 PST (-0800), paul.burton@mips.com wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:09:40PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >> We decided to add .frame_pointer to struct ptrace_syscall_info just for >> consistency with .instruction_pointer and .stack_pointer; I must have been >> misled by comments in asm-generic/ptrace.h into thinking that >> frame_pointer() is universally available across architectures. > > Is it correct to say that you're using frame_pointer() purely on user > register state, not kernel? > > If so then one option would be to define it for MIPS as something like: > > static inline unsigned long frame_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > return regs->regs[30]; > } > > My concern with that though would be that providing frame_pointer() > unconditionally might mislead people into thinking that the kernel > always has frame pointers, when in reality current MIPS kernels never > do. In fact a comment in MIPS' asm/ptrace.h seems to suggest the lack of > frame_pointer() is intentional for exactly that reason: > >> Don't use asm-generic/ptrace.h it defines FP accessors that don't make >> sense on MIPS. We rather want an error if they get invoked. > > Looking across architectures though MIPS isn't going to be the only one > missing frame_pointer(). With a little grepping it appears that these > architectures provide frame_pointer(): > > arm > arm64 > hexagon > nds32 > powerpc > riscv > sparc > um > x86 > > That leaves a whole bunch of other architectures (16) which don't have > frame_pointer(), or at least not in a way that I could see at a glance.
We (RISC-V) default to compiling without frame pointers. I'm not sure if it even makes sense have frame_pointer() on RISC-V, as it'll usually return garbage.
>> Unlike .instruction_pointer and .stack_pointer that are actually needed >> in strace, .frame_pointer is not used, so from strace PoV we don't really >> need it. >> >> So the question is, does anybody need a >> struct ptrace_syscall_info.frame_pointer? >> >> If yes, how can frame_pointer() be defined on MIPS? >> Or should we just forget about making sense of frame_pointer() and remove >> struct ptrace_syscall_info.frame_pointer from the proposed API? > > So, along these lines my suggestion would be to avoid it if you don't > really need it anyway. > > Thanks, > Paul
| |