This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils 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]

[Ping^2][1/9][RFC][DWARF] Reserve three DW_OP numbers in vendor extension space

Jiong Wang writes:

> Jiong Wang writes:
>> 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:
>>>> 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  <>
>>               Jiong Wang  <>
>>          * dwarf2.def (DW_OP_AARCH64_operation): Reserve the number 0xea.
> Ping~



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