All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
To: mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 13:37:20 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211123193723.12112-3-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

Rename unwinder functions for consistency and better naming.

	- Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_start().
	- Rename unwind_frame() to unwind_next().
	- Rename walk_stackframe() to unwind().

Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 7217c4f63ef7..918852cd2681 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
  */
 
 
-static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
-			    unsigned long pc)
+static void unwind_start(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
+			 unsigned long pc)
 {
 	frame->fp = fp;
 	frame->pc = pc;
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
 	/*
 	 * Prime the first unwind.
 	 *
-	 * In unwind_frame() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
+	 * In unwind_next() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
 	 * which can't be STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN, and the first unwind will be
 	 * treated as a transition to whichever stack that happens to be. The
 	 * prev_fp value won't be used, but we set it to 0 such that it is
@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
  * records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
  * and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
  */
-static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
-				struct stackframe *frame)
+static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
+			       struct stackframe *frame)
 {
 	unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
 	struct stack_info info;
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
 
 	/*
 	 * Record this frame record's values and location. The prev_fp and
-	 * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_frame() invocation.
+	 * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_next() invocation.
 	 */
 	frame->fp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
 	frame->pc = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
@@ -137,27 +137,27 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
 
 	return 0;
 }
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
 
-static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
-				    unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
-				    bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
+static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
+			   unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
+			   bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
 {
 	struct stackframe frame;
 
-	start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
+	unwind_start(&frame, fp, pc);
 
 	while (1) {
 		int ret;
 
 		if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
 			break;
-		ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
+		ret = unwind_next(tsk, &frame);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			break;
 	}
 }
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(walk_stackframe);
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
 
 static bool dump_backtrace_entry(void *arg, unsigned long where)
 {
@@ -210,5 +210,5 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
 		fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
 		pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
 	}
-	walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
+	unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
 }
-- 
2.25.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
To: mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 13:37:20 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211123193723.12112-3-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211123193723.12112-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

Rename unwinder functions for consistency and better naming.

	- Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_start().
	- Rename unwind_frame() to unwind_next().
	- Rename walk_stackframe() to unwind().

Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 7217c4f63ef7..918852cd2681 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
  */
 
 
-static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
-			    unsigned long pc)
+static void unwind_start(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
+			 unsigned long pc)
 {
 	frame->fp = fp;
 	frame->pc = pc;
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
 	/*
 	 * Prime the first unwind.
 	 *
-	 * In unwind_frame() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
+	 * In unwind_next() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
 	 * which can't be STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN, and the first unwind will be
 	 * treated as a transition to whichever stack that happens to be. The
 	 * prev_fp value won't be used, but we set it to 0 such that it is
@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
  * records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
  * and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
  */
-static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
-				struct stackframe *frame)
+static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
+			       struct stackframe *frame)
 {
 	unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
 	struct stack_info info;
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
 
 	/*
 	 * Record this frame record's values and location. The prev_fp and
-	 * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_frame() invocation.
+	 * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_next() invocation.
 	 */
 	frame->fp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
 	frame->pc = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
@@ -137,27 +137,27 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
 
 	return 0;
 }
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
 
-static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
-				    unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
-				    bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
+static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
+			   unsigned long fp, unsigned long pc,
+			   bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
 {
 	struct stackframe frame;
 
-	start_backtrace(&frame, fp, pc);
+	unwind_start(&frame, fp, pc);
 
 	while (1) {
 		int ret;
 
 		if (!fn(data, frame.pc))
 			break;
-		ret = unwind_frame(tsk, &frame);
+		ret = unwind_next(tsk, &frame);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			break;
 	}
 }
-NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(walk_stackframe);
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
 
 static bool dump_backtrace_entry(void *arg, unsigned long where)
 {
@@ -210,5 +210,5 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
 		fp = thread_saved_fp(task);
 		pc = thread_saved_pc(task);
 	}
-	walk_stackframe(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
+	unwind(task, fp, pc, consume_entry, cookie);
 }
-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-11-23 19:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <8b861784d85a21a9bf08598938c11aff1b1249b9>
2021-11-23 19:37 ` [PATCH v11 0/5] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2021-11-23 19:37   ` madvenka
2021-11-23 19:37   ` [PATCH v11 1/5] arm64: Call stack_backtrace() only from within walk_stackframe() madvenka
2021-11-23 19:37     ` madvenka
2021-11-25 13:48     ` Mark Brown
2021-11-25 13:48       ` Mark Brown
2021-11-30 15:05     ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 15:05       ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 17:13       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-30 17:13         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-30 18:29         ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 18:29           ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 20:29           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-30 20:29             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-12-10  4:13             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-12-10  4:13               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-23 19:37   ` madvenka [this message]
2021-11-23 19:37     ` [PATCH v11 2/5] arm64: Rename unwinder functions madvenka
2021-11-24 17:10     ` Mark Brown
2021-11-24 17:10       ` Mark Brown
2021-11-30 15:08     ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 15:08       ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 17:15       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-30 17:15         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-23 19:37   ` [PATCH v11 3/5] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2021-11-23 19:37     ` madvenka
2021-11-25 14:30     ` Mark Brown
2021-11-25 14:30       ` Mark Brown
2021-11-23 19:37   ` [PATCH v11 4/5] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-11-23 19:37     ` madvenka
2021-11-25 14:56     ` Mark Brown
2021-11-25 14:56       ` Mark Brown
2021-11-25 16:59       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-25 16:59         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-26 13:29         ` Mark Brown
2021-11-26 13:29           ` Mark Brown
2021-11-26 17:23           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-26 17:23             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-11-23 19:37   ` [PATCH v11 5/5] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-11-23 19:37     ` madvenka
2021-11-25 15:05     ` Mark Brown
2021-11-25 15:05       ` Mark Brown

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=20211123193723.12112-3-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=jpoimboe@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 \
    --cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.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.