debugging/02_day/valgrind/valgrind-3.11.0/docs/internals/tracking-fn-entry-exit.txt

This file describes in detail how Calltree accurately tracks function
entry/exit, one of those harder-than-you'd-think things.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josef's description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
To: Nicholas Nethercote <njn25@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: valgrind-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Valgrind-developers] Re: Tracking function entry/exit

On Sunday 25 January 2004 16:53, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> Josef,
>
> The topic of tracking function entry/exit has come up a few times on the
> mailing lists recently.  My usual answer is that it's difficult to do
> correctly.  However, you seem to do it with Calltree.  I looked at the
> source code a bit, and it looks like you are doing some reasonably
> complicated things to get it right, eg. unwinding the stack.  How robust
> is your approach?  Can you briefly explain how it works?

A note before describing the mechanism: I need to have a helper call at start
of every BB anyway, so I use this helper to do the tracking. This of course 
has some overhead, and perhaps can be avoided, but it seems to add to the 
robustness. I have a bug fix here for reentrent entering of a signal handler 
(2 bug reports). Otherwise I have no bug reports, so I assume that the 
mechanism to be quite robust.

I have a shadow call stack for every thread. For signal handlers of a thread, 
I first PUSH a separation marker on the shadow stack, and use the stack as 
normal. The marker is used for unwinding when leaving the signal handler. 
This is fine as there is no scheduling among signal handlers of one thread.

Instrumentation of calltree:
* Store at the end of each basic block the jmpkind into a tool-global, static 
variable.
* At the start of every BB, jump to a helper function.

The helper function does the following regarding function call tracking:
- for a control transfer to another ELF object/ELF section, override jmpkind 
  with a CALL (*1)
- for a control transfer to the 1st basic block of a function, override 
  jmpkind with a CALL (*2)
- do unwinding if needed (i.e, POPs of the shadow call stack)
- if jmpkind is RET and there was no unwinding/POP:
        - if our call stack is empty, simulate a CALL lasting from beginning
          (with Valgrind 2.1.x, this is not needed any more, as we run on
          simulated CPU from first client instruction)
        - otherwise this is a JMP using a RET instruction (typically used in
          the runtime linker). Do a POP, setting previous BB address to call
          site and override jmpkind with a CALL. By this, you get 2 function
          calls from a calling site.
- when jmpkind is a CALL, push new function call from previous BB to current
  BB on shadow call stack.
- Save current BB address to be available for call to handler in next BB.

Special care is needed at thread switches and enter/leave of signal handlers, 
as we need separate shadow call stacks.

Known bug: We should check for the need of unwinding when ESP is explicitly 
written to. I hope this doesn't create too much overhead.

Remarks:
(*1) Jumps between ELF objects are function calls to a shared library. This is 
     mainly done to catch the JMP from PLT code.
(*2) This is what your function tracking skin/tool does. It is needed here
     mainly to catch tail recursion. In general, for functions doing a
     "return otherfunction()", GCC produces JMPs with -O2. 

Additional points:
- If I need a name for a function, but there is no debug info, I use the 
  instruction address minus the load offset of the corresponding ELF object
  (if there is one) to get a relative address for that ELF object. This
  offset can be used with objdump later in postprocessing tools (e.g.
  objdump). I would suggest this change even for cachegrind instead of a
  "???".
- I introduced the ability to specify functions to be "skipped". This means 
  that execution of these functions is attributed to the calling function.
  The default is to skip all functions located in PLT sections. Thus, in
  effect, costs of PLT functions are attributed to callers, and the call to
  a shared library function starts directly with code in the other ELF
  object.
- As Vg 2.1.x does pointerchecking, the instrumentation can't write to
  memory space of Valgrind any longer. Currently, my tool needs
  "--pointercheck=no" to be able to run. Jeremy and me already agreed on
  replacing current LD/ST with a CLD/CST (Client Load/Store) with pointer
  check and keep original LD/ST for tool usage without pointerchecking.

Looking at these things, it seems possible to do function tracking at end of a 
basic block instead of the beginning of the next BB. This way, we can perhaps 
avoid calls to helpers at every BB.

From my point of view, it would be great to integrate optional function 
tracking into Valgrind core with some hooks.

Josef


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josef's clarification of Nick's summary of Josef's description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday 21 June 2004 12:15, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:

> I've paraphrased your description to help me understand it better, but I'm
> still not quite clear on some points.  I looked at the code, but found it
> hard to understand.  Could you help me?  I've written my questions in
> square brackets.  Here's the description.
>
> --------
>
> Data structures:
>
> - have a shadow call stack for every thread
> [not sure exactly what goes on this]

That's the resizable array of struct _call_entry's.
Probably most important for call tracking is the %ESP value
directly after a CALL, and a pointer to some struct storing information
about the call arc or the called function.

The esp value is needed to be able to robustly unwind correctly at %esp 
changes with %esp > stored esp on shadow stack.

> Action at BB start -- depends on jmp_kind from previous BB:
>
> - If jmp_kind is neither JmpCall nor JmpRet (ie. is JmpNone, JmpBoring,
> JmpCond or JmpSyscall) and we transferred from one ELF object/section to
> another, it must be a function call to a shared library -- treat as a
> call.  This catches jmps from PLT code.
>
> - If this is the first BB of a function, treat as a call.  This catches
> tail calls (which gcc uses for "return f()" with -O2).
> [What if a function had a 'goto' back to its beginning?  Would that be
> interpreted as a call?]

Yes. IMHO, there is no way to distinguish between optimized tail recursion 
using a jump and regular jumping. But as most functions need parameters on 
the stack, a normal jump will rarely jump to the first BB of a function, 
wouldn't it?

> - Unwind the shadow call stack if necessary.
> [when is "necessary"?  If the real %esp > the shadow stack %esp?]

Yes. Currently I do this at every BB boundary, but perhaps it should be 
checked at every %esp change. Then, OTOH, it would look strange to attribute 
instructions of one BB to different functions?

> - If this is a function return and there was no shadow stack unwinding,
> this must be a RET control transfer (typically used in the runtime
> linker).  Pop the shadow call stack, setting the previous BB address to
> call site and override jmpkind with a CALL. By this, you get 2 function
> calls from a calling site.
> [I don't understand this...  What is a "RET control transfer"?  Why do
> you end up with 2 function calls -- is that a bad thing?]

If there is a RET instruction, this usually should unwind (i.e. leave a 
function) at least one entry of the shadow call stack. But this doesn't need 
to be the case, i.e. even after a RET, %esp could be lower or equal to the 
one on the shadow stack. E.g. suppose

	PUSH addr
	RET

This is only another way of saying "JMP addr", and doesn't add/remove any 
stack frame at all.
Now, if addr is (according to debug information) inside of another function, 
this is a JMP between functions, let's say from B to C. Suppose B was called 
from A, I generate a RETURN event to A and a CALL event from A to C in this 
case.

> - If we're treating the control transfer as a call, push new function call
> from previous BB to current BB on shadow call stack.
> [when is this information used?]

I meant: Append a struct call_entry to the shadow stack (together with the 
current %esp value). As I said before, the shadow stack is used for robust 
unwinding.

> - Save current BB address to be available for call to handler in next BB.
>
>
> Other actions:
>
> When entering a signal handler, first push a separation marker on the
> thread's shadow stack, then use it as normal.  The marker is used for
> unwinding when leaving the signal handler.  This is fine as there is no
> scheduling among signal handlers of one thread.
>
> Special care is needed at thread switches and enter/leave of signal
> handlers, as we need separate shadow call stacks.
> [Do you mean "separate shadow call stacks for each thread"?]

Yes.

> What about stack switching -- does it cope with that?  (Not that Valgrind
> in general does...)

No.
If you could give me a hint how to do it, I would be pleased. The problem here 
IMHO is: How to distinguish among a stack switch and allocating a huge array 
on the stack?

Josef