On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 14:13:48 +0900
Tatsuya S <tatsuya.s2862@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A extra entry is shown on stack trace(CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC=y).
[003] ..... 110.171589: vfs_write <-__x64_sys_write
[003] ..... 110.171600: <stack trace>
=> XXXXXXXXX (Wrong function name)
=> vfs_write
=> ksys_write
=> do_syscall_64
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
To resolve this, increment skip for __ftrace_trace_stack() in
function_stack_trace_call().
The reason why skip is incremented for __ftrace_trace_stack()
is because __ftrace_trace_stack() in stack trace is the only function
that wasn't skipped from anywhere.
Hi Tatsuya,
Can you focus on making test cases which checks what combinations caused
this wrong values and what does not? Also it should be checked with
various kconfigs. That is more valuable than making add-hoc fixes.
Thank you,
Signed-off-by: Tatsuya S <tatsuya.s2862@xxxxxxxxx>
---
V2 -> V3: Changed the place to increment skip number
V1 -> V2: Fixed redundant code
kernel/trace/trace_functions.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c b/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c
index 3b0cea37e029..27089d8e65d4 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_functions.c
@@ -203,23 +203,21 @@ function_trace_call(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC
-/*
- * Skip 2:
- *
- * function_stack_trace_call()
- * ftrace_call()
- */
-#define STACK_SKIP 2
-#else
/*
* Skip 3:
- * __trace_stack()
- * function_stack_trace_call()
- * ftrace_call()
+ * Skipped functions if CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC is defined
+ *
+ * __ftrace_trace_stack()
+ * function_stack_trace_call()
+ * ftrace_call()
+ *
+ * Otherwise
+ *
+ * __trace_stack()
+ * function_stack_trace_call()
+ * ftrace_call()
*/
#define STACK_SKIP 3
-#endif
static void
function_stack_trace_call(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
--
2.46.2