Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option
From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Sun May 07 2017 - 17:48:56 EST
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 11:08:19AM -0700, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On May 7, 2017 10:59:16 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> One instance of the structure would exist for each time the stack
> >> pointer changes, e.g. for every function entry, push/pop, and rsp
> >> add/subtract. The data could be assembled and sorted offline,
> >> derived from DWARF, or more likely, generated by objtool. After
> >> some rough calculations, I think the section size would be comparable
> >> the sizes of the DWARF .eh_frame sections it would replace.
> >That's something I've been thinking about as well: if objtool generates
> >unwinder data structures then the kernel is not directly exposed to
> >tooling bugs
> >A fair chunk of the fragility of DWARF comes from the fact that it's
> >generated by
> >a tool chain that we cannot fix as part of the kernel project. If GCC
> >crap debuginfo, and GDB happens to work with it but the kernel not,
> >we'll have to
> >work it around in the kernel. If GCC starts bloating debuginfo in the
> >future we
> >are screwed as well, etc.
> >If objtool generates debuginfo then it's _our_ responsibility to have
> >unwinder info and we obviously manage its structure and size as well.
> >The unwinder itself should still do sanity checks, etc. (like all good
> >infrastructure code) - but the nature of the kernel's exposure to tool
> >details changes in a very fundamental way.
> >So yes, I think this is a very good idea, assuming it works in
> >practice! ;-)
> > Ingo
> Can objtool verify the unwinder at each address in the kernel, or is that an AI-complete problem?
It can't verify the *unwinder*, but it can verify the data which is fed
to the unwinder (either DWARF or the structs I proposed above). For
each function, it follows every possible code path, and it can keep
track of the stack pointer while doing so.