[Bug 2064538] Re: Revert back frame pointers for s390x (remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer but use -mbackchain)

[bugproxy]

------- Comment From Boris.mail at de.ibm.com 2024-08-26 10:56 EDT-------
Fix was released to 24.04 (Noble). Therefore, we can close the bug.

Thanks everyone for your work!

==> Changing status to: "CLOSED"

** Tags removed: targetmilestone-inin---
** Tags added: targetmilestone-inin2404

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to glibc in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2064538

Title:
  Revert back frame pointers for s390x (remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer
  but use -mbackchain)

Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems:
  Fix Released
Status in dpkg package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in glibc package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in linux package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dpkg source package in Noble:
  Fix Released
Status in glibc source package in Noble:
  Fix Released
Status in linux source package in Noble:
  Fix Released
Status in dpkg source package in Oracular:
  Fix Released
Status in glibc source package in Oracular:
  Fix Released
Status in linux source package in Oracular:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  SRU Justification:

  [ Impact ]

   * The preferred way of doing stack unwinding on Linux on Z is via dwarf call frame information.
  In absence of a dwarf unwinder (as in the Linux kernel) a stack chain can be maintained at runtime in addition to the dwarf unwinding information.

   * This allows for simple backtrace implementations, but imposes a
  small runtime overhead. For this to work, all code that might be part
  of backtrace must be built with the -mbackchain GCC option.

   * The -fno-omit-framepointer switch is neither necessary nor helpful in this context.
    Having a (soft/simulated) frame pointer does not improve backtraces at all on IBM Z.

   * However, forcing a frame pointer via the -fno-omit-frame-pointer
  option negatively affects performance for multiple reasons: extra
  prologue/epilogue overhead and fewer shrink-wrapping opportunities.

   * Given -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not provide any improvements
  (backtraces or otherwise) and only reduces performance, -fno-omit-
  frame-pointers should not be used on IBM Z.

   * So we are facing here a performance penalty without any gain - on
  this particular platform.

   * And sometimes (in rare cases like LP#2060108) frame pointers may
  even lead to failed builds.

  [ Test Plan ]

   * Due to the above description of the impact and rationale,
     this pragmatic approach for testing is given:

   * Build the affected packages where frame-pointers should be reverted
     using the updated dpkg package (that incl. the modified build defaults)
     on (or for) this particular platform.

   * Now frame-pointer usage be checked in the following different ways:

   * 1) For the ease of use (and thanks to Julian Klode), there is this python
        test script available that allows to verify a binary in regard to
        frame pointers:
        https://gist.github.com/julian-klode/85e55553f85c410a1b856a93dce77208
        https://gist.githubusercontent.com/julian-klode/85e55553f85c410a1b856a93dce77208/raw/488b8509e6f23fe48f917961fe711b285dcb2e28/dwprod.py
        requires python3-pyelftools

   * 2) Another more manual way is to verify based on debug symbols like this:
        - find and install the ddeb package
        - maybe extract the  file (e.g. unzstd)
        - use 'readelf -wi'
        - and grep for 'DW_AT_produce' (build options)
        - look for entries regarding frame-pointer
        The output may look similar to this:
        readelf -wi ./usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/6.8.0-38-generic/kernel/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.ko | grep DW_AT_produce
            <23>   DW_AT_producer    : (indirect string, offset: 0x7d): GNU AS 2.42
            <129>   DW_AT_producer    : (indirect string, offset: 0x3eef): GNU C11 13.2.0 -m64 -mpacked-stack -mbackchain -msoft-float -march=z13 -mtune=z16 -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern -mfunction-return=thunk-extern -mindirect-branch-table -mrecord-mcount -mnop-mcount -mfentry -mzarch -g -gdwarf-5 -O2 -std=gnu11 -p -fshort-wchar -funsigned-char -fno-common -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -fno-allow-store-data-races -fno-stack-protector -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero -fno-stack-clash-protection -fzero-call-used-regs=used-gpr -fno-inline-functions-called-once -falign-functions=8 -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 -fno-strict-overflow -fstack-check=no -fconserve-stack -fsanitize=bounds-strict -fsanitize=shift -fsanitize=bool -fsanitize=enum -fPIC

   * 3) And maybe watching the build messages / log for the build options that
        were used (but that is probably not sufficient - it's better to inspect
        the output.)

  [ Where problems could occur ]

   * The dpkg modifications could have been done erroneously.
     A dpkg test build and/or builds of other packages with the modified dpkg
     version in place would show this.

   * The settings in dpkg might be overwritten by other settings/packages.
     Tests like above, would show this.

   * One may think there could be issues in an environment where some packages
     have frame-pointer enabled and other don't.
     This is fine and was confirmed by IBM toolchain team and ours
     (as well as by a longer running <weeks> test system,
      with FP disabled in kernel, that showed no issues - like expected).

  [ Other Info ]

   * These changes were implemented during the opening of the oracular series.
     The very same changes are backported to 24.04 LTS.

   * These only affect the ppc64el and s390x architectures,
     for other architectures it's a no-change upload.

   * We didn't see any fallout for these changes during the development
     on the oracular series, and therefore don't expect any fallout or
     regressions in 24.04 LTS either.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/2064538/+subscriptions