This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] S390: Fix backtrace in vdso functions.

On 12/04/2017 11:47 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:

On 04/12/2017 05:59, Stefan Liebler wrote:
On 11/28/2017 02:09 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:

On 28/11/2017 10:44, Stefan Liebler wrote:

On s390, GDB fails to show the complete backtrace from within vdso functions. The macro INTERNAL_VSYSCALL_CALL saves the return address in r14 to r10 before branching to the vdso function. The branch-instruction updates r14 in order to let the vdso function return. Then the original address in r14 is restored from r10. Unfortunately, there are no cfi-rules and GDB fails.

Furthermore the call of the vdso function does not comply with the s390 ABI as no stack-frame for the vdso-function is generated.

This patch removes the s390 specific macro INTERNAL_VSYSCALL_CALL and the common implementation in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysdep-vdso.h is used. Then the vdso function is called via function-pointer and GCC generates a new stack-frame and emits all needed cfi-rules.

The defines CLOBBER_[0-6] are removed as they  were only used in macro INTERNAL_VSYSCALL_CALL.

The macro INTERNAL_VSYSCALL_NO_SYSCALL_FALLBACK is not used on s390. The only user is power. Thus it is removed from s390 sysdep.h.

I am almost sure we can remove it for powerpc as well (I can't see
no immediate gain on doing a function call using inline assembly


      * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/s390-64/sysdep.h
      * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/s390-32/sysdep.h: Likewise.

Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <>

If there are no objections regarding the s390 patch, I'll commit.

Adhemerval: Do you keep working on removing INTERNAL_VSYSCALL_NO_SYSCALL_FALLBACK on powerpc?

Different than s390 where the an error is indicate through a negative value,
powerpc signals an error through CR0.SO.  And __kernel_clock_getres and
__kernel_clock_gettime fallback to a syscall call in case the timers are
not supported through vDSO, which requires we check CR0.SO value.  I do
not a reliable way to check it after a function call on GCC (we can issue
a volatile assembly after it, but I think it is still fragile and it
would require a arch-specific wrapper anyway).

There is also the issue with __kernel_get_tbfreq which returns a 64 bit
value for powercp32, so we need another wrapper that does expect the return
code as long int.

Then I've just committed this patch.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]