lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/15] perf: Add ability to dump user regs
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 06:06:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:12:30AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > > Hi, Jiri -
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > [...] Upon a normal syscall entry to the kernel, not
> > > > > all user registers are saved explicitly for such easy retrieval. The
> > > > > others may be spilled to the stack by gcc during the various sys_*
> > > > > functions or elsewhere. [...]
> > > >
> > > > Are you reffering to x86_64 where only portion of registers
> > > > is stored by SAVE_ARGS macro? Seems like 32 bits stores the
> > > > whole pt_regs.
> > >
> > > I believe that's the right area. I'm not sure even the 32-bit variant
> > > is complete enough, for example exempting MMX/SSE registers. These
> > > may also contain spilled registers before long.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Generally you could need all the registers to start the unwind, but
> > > > I was assuming that for most cases the stack pointer and instruction
> > > > pointer should be enough.. but I might be wrong here.
> > >
> > > Yeah; the question is how much is missed besides those "most cases".
> > >
> > >
> > > > > To recover these registers at run time, we found that the kernel
> > > > > stack itself has to be partially unwound [... Without that, it ...]
> > > > > may accidentally pass garbage data to perf userspace. Correcting
> > > > > this could require a kernel-space libunwind.
> > >
> > > > AFAIK not going to happen any time soon ;)
> > >
> > > Understood. Then the code needs to ensure that it does not purport to
> > > pass register values that it does not know. (Back when we were at
> > > this stage in systemtap, we got some reasonable backtraces even
> > > without kernel unwinding, ie. tolerating missing registers.)
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > I think in normal syscall case we save rdi, rsi, rdx, rax and rip.
> > If we take the syscall slow path we save rbx, rbp, r12-15.
> >
> > Unfortunately we don't save rsp, which must be the most important
> > for cfi unwinding.
>
> hm, I think we always have stack pointer
>
> should be saved by cpu itself together with other control
> regs like: ip cs eflags sp ss
>
> For syscalls, we also have the ones stored by SAVE_ARGS
> The rest of the registers (SAVE_REST) are available
> only for the sake of the syscall_trace_enter during
> the slow path, but it's poped out before executing
> the actuall syscall.

Ah good point!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-28 23:43    [W:0.057 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site