From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com, sjitindarsingh@gmail.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 2/4] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder code for better consistency and maintenance
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 17:20:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210901162005.GH5976@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ecf0e4d1-7c47-426e-1350-fe5dc8bd88a5@linux.microsoft.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 06:19:07PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> Mark Rutland,
> Do you also approve the idea of placing unreliable functions (from an unwind
> perspective) in a special section and using that in the unwinder for
> reliable stack trace?
Rutland is on vacation for a couple of weeks so he's unlikely to reply
before the merge window is over I'm afraid.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com, sjitindarsingh@gmail.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 2/4] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder code for better consistency and maintenance
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 17:20:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210901162005.GH5976@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ecf0e4d1-7c47-426e-1350-fe5dc8bd88a5@linux.microsoft.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 06:19:07PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> Mark Rutland,
> Do you also approve the idea of placing unreliable functions (from an unwind
> perspective) in a special section and using that in the unwinder for
> reliable stack trace?
Rutland is on vacation for a couple of weeks so he's unlikely to reply
before the merge window is over I'm afraid.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-01 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <b45aac2843f16ca759e065ea547ab0afff8c0f01>
2021-08-12 19:05 ` [RFC PATCH v8 0/4] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2021-08-12 19:05 ` madvenka
2021-08-12 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v8 1/4] arm64: Make all stack walking functions use arch_stack_walk() madvenka
2021-08-12 19:06 ` madvenka
2021-08-24 13:13 ` Mark Rutland
2021-08-24 13:13 ` Mark Rutland
2021-08-24 17:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-24 17:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-24 17:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-24 17:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-24 17:38 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-24 17:38 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-24 17:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-24 17:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-26 4:52 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-26 4:52 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-09 23:41 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-10-09 23:41 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-12 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v8 2/4] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder code for better consistency and maintenance madvenka
2021-08-12 19:06 ` madvenka
2021-08-26 15:46 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-26 15:46 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-26 23:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-26 23:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-09-01 16:20 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-09-01 16:20 ` Mark Brown
2021-09-02 7:10 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-09-02 7:10 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-12 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v8 3/4] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-08-12 19:06 ` madvenka
2021-08-24 5:55 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-08-24 5:55 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-08-24 12:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-24 12:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-25 0:01 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-08-25 0:01 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-08-26 15:57 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-26 15:57 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-26 23:31 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-26 23:31 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-12 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v8 4/4] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-08-12 19:06 ` madvenka
2021-08-12 19:17 ` [RFC PATCH v8 0/4] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-08-12 19:17 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
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=20210901162005.GH5976@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.