From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@foss.arm.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com>
Cc: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [1/9][RFC][DWARF] Reserve three DW_OP numbers in vendor extension space
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:15:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07b84003-4e73-8a7f-f949-4c3500e4ffc4@foss.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161116140218.GU3541@tucnak.redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4006 bytes --]
On 16/11/16 14:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 02:54:56PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 10:00 +0000, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>> The two operations DW_OP_AARCH64_paciasp and DW_OP_AARCH64_paciasp_deref were
>>> designed as shortcut operations when LR is signed with A key and using
>>> function's CFA as salt. This is the default behaviour of return address
>>> signing so is expected to be used for most of the time. DW_OP_AARCH64_pauth
>>> is designed as a generic operation that allow describing pointer signing on
>>> any value using any salt and key in case we can't use the shortcut operations
>>> we can use this.
>>
>> I admit to not fully understand the salting/keying involved. But given
>> that the DW_OP space is really tiny, so we would like to not eat up too
>> many of them for new opcodes. And given that introducing any new DW_OPs
>> using for CFI unwinding will break any unwinder anyway causing us to
>> update them all for this new feature. Have you thought about using a new
>> CIE augmentation string character for describing that the return
>> address/link register used by a function/frame is salted/keyed?
>>
>> This seems a good description of CIE records and augmentation
>> characters:http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/460
>>
>> It obviously also involves updating all unwinders to understand the new
>> augmentation character (and possible arguments). But it might be more
>> generic and saves us from using up too many DW_OPs.
>
> From what I understood, the return address is not always scrambled, so
> it doesn't apply to the whole function, just to most of it (except for
> an insn in the prologue and some in the epilogue). So I think one op is
> needed. But can't it be just a toggable flag whether the return address
> is scrambled + some arguments to it?
> Thus DW_OP_AARCH64_scramble .uleb128 0 would mean that the default
> way of scrambling starts here (if not already active) or any kind of
> scrambling ends here (if already active), and
> DW_OP_AARCH64_scramble .uleb128 non-zero would be whatever encoding you need
> to represent details of the less common variants with details what to do.
> Then you'd just hook through some MD_* macro in the unwinder the
> descrambling operation if the scrambling is active at the insns you unwind
> on.
>
> Jakub
Hi Mark, Jakub:
Thanks very much for the suggestions.
I have done some experiments on your ideas and am thinking it's good to
combine them together. The use of DW_CFA instead of DW_OP can avoid building
all information from scratch at each unwind location, while we can indicate
the signing key index through new AArch64 CIE augmentation 'B'. This new
approach reduce the unwind table size overhead from ~25% to ~5% when return
address signing enabled, it also largely simplified dwarf generation code for
return address signing.
As one new DWARF call frame instruction is needed for AArch64, I want to reuse
DW_CFA_GNU_window_save to save the space. It is in vendor extension space and
used for Sparc only, I think it make sense to reuse it for AArch64. On
AArch64, DW_CFA_GNU_window_save toggle return address sign status which kept
in a new boolean type column in DWARF table, so DW_CFA_GNU_window_save takes
no argument on AArch64, the same as on Sparc, this makes no difference to those
existed encoding, length calculation code.
Meanwhile one new DWARF expression operation number is still needed for
AArch64, it's useful for describing those complex pointer signing scenarios
and it will be used to multiplex some further extensions on AArch64.
OK on this proposal and to install this patch to gcc trunk?
Hi GDB, Binutils maintainer:
OK on this proposal and install this patch to binutils-gdb master?
include/
2016-11-29 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@arm.com>
* dwarf2.def (DW_OP_AARCH64_operation): Reserve the number 0xea.
[-- Attachment #2: dw.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1119 bytes --]
diff --git a/include/dwarf2.def b/include/dwarf2.def
index bb916ca238221151cf49359c25fd92643c7e60af..f3892a20da1fe13ddb419e5d7eda07f2c8d8b0c6 100644
--- a/include/dwarf2.def
+++ b/include/dwarf2.def
@@ -684,6 +684,12 @@ DW_OP (DW_OP_HP_unmod_range, 0xe5)
DW_OP (DW_OP_HP_tls, 0xe6)
/* PGI (STMicroelectronics) extensions. */
DW_OP (DW_OP_PGI_omp_thread_num, 0xf8)
+/* AARCH64 extensions.
+ DW_OP_AARCH64_operation takes one mandatory unsigned LEB128 operand.
+ Bits[6:0] of this operand is the action code, all others bits are initialized
+ to 0 except explicitly documented for one action. Please refer AArch64 DWARF
+ ABI documentation for details. */
+DW_OP (DW_OP_AARCH64_operation, 0xea)
DW_END_OP
DW_FIRST_ATE (DW_ATE_void, 0x0)
@@ -765,7 +771,8 @@ DW_CFA (DW_CFA_hi_user, 0x3f)
/* SGI/MIPS specific. */
DW_CFA (DW_CFA_MIPS_advance_loc8, 0x1d)
-/* GNU extensions. */
+/* GNU extensions.
+ NOTE: DW_CFA_GNU_window_save is multiplexed on Sparc and AArch64. */
DW_CFA (DW_CFA_GNU_window_save, 0x2d)
DW_CFA (DW_CFA_GNU_args_size, 0x2e)
DW_CFA (DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended, 0x2f)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-30 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <c9da17a6-c3de-4466-c023-4e4ddbe38efb@foss.arm.com>
2016-11-11 18:22 ` Jiong Wang
2016-11-11 19:39 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-11-15 16:00 ` Jiong Wang
2016-11-15 16:18 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-11-15 16:48 ` Jiong Wang
2016-11-15 19:25 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2016-11-16 10:00 ` Jiong Wang
[not found] ` <1479304496.14569.256.camel@redhat.com>
2016-11-16 14:02 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-11-30 11:15 ` Jiong Wang [this message]
2016-11-30 18:25 ` Yao Qi
2016-12-12 13:40 ` [Ping~][1/9][RFC][DWARF] " Jiong Wang
2016-12-19 13:59 ` [Ping^2][1/9][RFC][DWARF] " Jiong Wang
2016-12-28 18:21 ` [Ping^3][1/9][RFC][DWARF] " Jiong Wang
2016-12-28 19:54 ` [1/9][RFC][DWARF] " Cary Coutant
2017-01-03 9:32 ` Jiong Wang
2017-01-03 10:10 ` Jiong Wang
2017-01-03 10:57 ` Yao Qi
2017-01-03 15:21 ` Nick Clifton
2017-01-03 17:47 ` Yao Qi
2016-11-30 21:44 ` Cary Coutant
2016-12-01 10:42 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2016-12-01 11:09 ` Jiong Wang
2016-11-15 16:51 ` Jiong Wang
2016-12-28 19:48 ` Cary Coutant
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=07b84003-4e73-8a7f-f949-4c3500e4ffc4@foss.arm.com \
--to=jiong.wang@foss.arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=mjw@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox