[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 18:14:03 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: Matt Wozniski <godlygeek@...il.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Unwinding multithreaded musl applications with elfutils
fails
* Matt Wozniski <godlygeek@...il.com> [2023-04-01 22:57:09 -0400]:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:40 AM Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> >
> > * Matt Wozniski <godlygeek@...il.com> [2023-03-30 22:43:28 -0400]:
> > > Using the elfutils eu-stack program or libdw's dwfl_getthread_frames
> > > API to unwind multithreaded applications linked against musl libc on
> > > x86-64 fails, getting stuck on `__clone`:
> >
> > musl has limited cfi debug info support (target specific), likely the
> > unwinder needs a
> >
> > .cfi_undefined rip
> >
> > in the clone start function to know where the stack frames end.
> ...
> > musl supports building things without any cfi debug info since c
> > does not require unwind support, but linux systems nowadays assume
> > unwind tables are part of the platform abi so musl based distros
> > should probably include it.
> ...
> > musl does not guarantee frame-pointers either
>
> So, if I understand what you're saying correctly: musl itself doesn't
> guarantee the ability to unwind through it at all (neither using DWARF
> unwind tables nor using frame pointers), but musl based distros like
> Alpine ought to include proper unwind tables. Does that mean that you
> don't consider the lack of CFI for `__clone` a defect in musl, but
> that it's still worth reporting to the Alpine musl maintainers as a
> defect in Alpine's musl build?
>
> If so, what would distro maintainers have to do in order to remedy
> that defect? Would it be patches to the (target specific) `clone.s` to
> add appropriate CFI when building musl for the distro?
musl has no cfi annotation by default, but there is a tool that adds
it to asm on some targets and the compiler can generate cfi for c code.
i think distros should enable cfi when building musl (currently it is
only in debug builds i think).
but it seems this is not enough to mark the end of the stack frames.
> > (it could figure out the end with the same heuristic that gdb uses,
> > but apparently elfutils is not smart enough).
> >
> > some backtracers may want cleared frame-pointer (rbp=0) to detect
> > the end.
> ...
> > rbp=0 may be the reason why backtrace in the main thread works, so it
> > may be enough to do that in threads too.
>
> And it sounds like both of these are workarounds that elfutils might
> be able to pursue in the absence of correct unwind information built
> into musl itself. Thanks, that gives a useful direction to dig in.
it seems __clone already has xor %ebp,%ebp
maybe we need a rule in add-cfi.x86_64.awk to emit cfi based on that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
