LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Poimboeuf <>
To: Matthew Wilcox <>
Subject: Re: ORC unwinder bad backtrace
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:45:48 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180418154548.eh5oq5inz3l3agyu@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:54:38AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> f81061192 <pte_clear.constprop.18>:
> ...
> ffffffff810611bf:       90                      nop
> ffffffff810611c0 <perf_trace_x86_exceptions>:
> I suspect an off-by-one error; you don't really mean to point to the
> byte before perf_trace_x86_exception, you mean to point to byte 0 of
> perf_trace_x86_exception.
> I'm going to archive up this compilation in case there's anything useful
> I can extract for you from it later.

Thanks for reporting this.  So there are really two issues:

1) The question marks mean the ORC unwinder got confused (and had to
   fall back to the crude "just print all text addresses on the stack").
   This is the real issue.

2) As you found, what should be "perf_trace_x86_exceptions+0x0" is
   actually printed as "pte_clear.constprop.18+0x2e".  I don't think
   this is fixable, because this is printed by the oops fallback code
   which just blindly prints out all the text addresses it finds on the
   stack when the unwinder fails.  It can't know whether the address was
   a call return address (the usual case) or was something else (in this
   case I suspect it's just a function pointer which just happens to be
   on the stack), so it assumes the former, and prints it accordingly.
   This isn't fixable per se -- but it will be "fixed" when we fix #1,
   which will give a deterministic stack trace instead of using the dumb
   fallback code.

Is it possible for you to copy the vmlinux somewhere?  That would be the
easiest option for debugging.

Otherwise I may ask for some specifics for you to gather from it.

Is it recreatable?  Once I come up with a fix, it would be helpful to
test with the same scenario.

Also has the root cause of the stack recursion been found?  It looks
like the perf_trace_x86_exceptions() tracepoint code is doing something


  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-18 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-18 13:54 Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-18 15:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2018-05-01 14:28   ` Josh Poimboeuf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180418154548.eh5oq5inz3l3agyu@treble \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: ORC unwinder bad backtrace' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).