From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: Unwinder enhancements for reliable stack trace
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:26:56 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <685d583b-f3c1-8cb3-aeca-78e2fbb3fd25@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210224123336.GA4504@sirena.org.uk>
On 2/24/21 6:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 01:20:49PM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 2/23/21 1:02 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:12:43PM -0600, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>
>>>> Reliable stack trace function
>>>> =============================
>>>>
>>>> Implement arch_stack_walk_reliable(). This function walks the stack like
>>>> the existing stack trace functions with a couple of additional checks:
>
>>> Again, this should be at least one separate patch. How does this ensure
>>> that we don't have any issues with any of the various probe mechanisms?
>>> If there's no need to explicitly check anything that should be called
>>> out in the changelog.
>
>> I am trying to do this in an incremental fashion. I have to study the probe
>> mechanisms a little bit more before I can come up with a solution. But
>> if you want to see that addressed in this patch set, I could do that.
>> It will take a little bit of time. That is all.
>
> Handling of the probes stuff seems like it's critical to reliable stack
> walk so we shouldn't claim to have support for reliable stack walk
> without it. If it was a working implementation we could improve that'd
> be one thing but this would be buggy which is a different thing.
>
OK. I will address the probe stuff in my resend.
>>>> + (void) on_accessible_stack(task, stackframe, &info);
>
>>> Shouldn't we return NULL if we are not on an accessible stack?
>
>> The prev_fp has already been checked by the unwinder in the previous
>> frame. That is why I don't check the return value. If that is acceptable,
>> I will add a comment.
>
> TBH if you're adding the comment it seems like you may as well add the
> check, it's not like it's expensive and it means there's no possibility
> that some future change could result in this assumption being broken.
>
OK. I will add the check.
Thanks.
Madhavan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-24 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bc4761a47ad08ab7fdd555fc8094beb8fc758d33>
2021-02-23 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/1] arm64: Unwinder enhancements for reliable stack trace madvenka
2021-02-23 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] " madvenka
2021-02-23 19:02 ` Mark Brown
2021-02-23 19:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-24 12:33 ` Mark Brown
2021-02-24 19:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2021-02-24 12:17 ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-24 19:34 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-25 11:58 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-01 16:58 ` 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=685d583b-f3c1-8cb3-aeca-78e2fbb3fd25@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.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=mark.rutland@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).