Re: [PATCH v8 8/8] livepatch: Detect offset for the ftrace location during build

[Balbir Singh]

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 17:45 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2016-02-13 03:13:29, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 16:32 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Livepatch works on x86_64 and s390 only when the ftrace call
> > > is at the very beginning of the function. But PPC is different.
> > > We need to handle TOC and save LR there before calling the
> > > global ftrace handler.
> > > 
> > > Now, the problem is that the extra operations have different
> > > length on PPC depending on the used gcc version. It is
> > > 4 instructions (16 bytes) before gcc-6 and only 3 instructions
> > > (12 bytes) with gcc-6.
> > > 
> > > This patch tries to detect the offset a generic way during
> > > build. It assumes that the offset of the ftrace location
> > > is the same for all functions. It modifies the existing
> > > recordmcount tool that is able to find read mcount locations
> > > directly from the object files. It adds an option -p
> > > to print the first found offset.
> > > 
> > > The recordmcount tool is then used in the kernel/livepatch
> > > subdirectory to generate a header file. It defines
> > > a constant that is used to compute the ftrace location
> > > from the function address.
> > > 
> > > Finally, we have to enable the C implementation of the
> > > recordmcount tool to be used on PPC and S390. It seems
> > > to work fine there. It should be more reliable because
> > > it reads the standardized elf structures. The old perl
> > > implementation uses rather complex regular expressions
> > > to parse objdump output and is therefore much more tricky.
> > 
> > I'm still missing something, I'm getting offset as 8
> > 
> > When I run, I get
> > 
> > scripts/recordmcount -p kernel/livepatch/core.oÂ
> > #define KLP_FTRACE_LOCATION 8
> > 
> > scripts/recordmcount -p kernel/livepatch/ftrace-test.oÂ
> > #define KLP_FTRACE_LOCATION 8
> > 
> > My sample fails as well, since the expected offset is 16.
> > I guess the script is being run against a not so good
> > test.
> 
> I guess that you used a broken gcc and cheated the check
> to pass the compilation. Did you, please?
> 
> The test used to detect the offset is using a minimalistic
> function is is afftected by the gcc bug.
> 
> The patch below might be used to cheat the offset check as well.
> 
> Torsten, please mention this somewhere if you, just by chance,
> send a new version of the patchset.
> 
> From f6a438a3f2f60cc1acc859b41d0cc9259c9a331e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: root <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:35:06 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Make sure the TOC is handled when detecting
> Âftrace location
> 
> There seems to be a bug in gcc on PPC. It does not handle TOC
> if the function does not access global variables or functions
> by default. But it should when profiling is enabled.
> 

Yep.. Please seeÂsee http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145518015816435&w=2
and my question at http://marc.info/?l=linuxppc-embedded&m=145518330317496&w=2

> This patch works around this problem by adding a call
> to a global function.
> 
> This patch is for testing only!
> ---
> Âkernel/livepatch/ftrace-test.c | 3 +++
> Â1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/ftrace-test.c b/kernel/livepatch/ftrace-test.c
> index 22f0c54bf7b3..a3b7aabb67e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/ftrace-test.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/ftrace-test.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
> Â/* Sample code to figure out mcount location offset */
> +#include 
> +
> Â
> Âint test(int a)
> Â{
> +	printk("%d\n", a);
> Â	return ++a;
> Â}

This is much better, I see the offset of 16.

Balbir Singh