All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:19:01 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <66545c21-cfcf-60eb-4acf-39be99520369@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220623173224.GB16966@willie-the-truck>



On 6/23/22 12:32, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 04:07:11PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> I have synced this patch series to v5.19-rc2.
>> I have also removed the following patch.
>>
>> 	[PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>>
>> as HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE depends on STACK_VALIDATION which is not present
>> yet. This patch will be added in the future once Objtool is enhanced to
>> provide stack validation in some form.
> 
> Given that it's not at all obvious that we're going to end up using objtool
> for arm64, does this patch series gain us anything in isolation?
> 

BTW, I have synced my patchset to 5.19-rc2 and sent it as v15.

So, to answer your question, patches 1 thru 3 in v15 are still useful even if we don't
consider reliable stacktrace. These patches reorganize the unwinder code based on
comments from both Mark Rutland and Mark Brown. Mark Brown has already OKed them.
If Mark Rutland OKes them, we should upstream them.

I can drop patches 4 thru 6. Actually, the objtool patch series that I have
sent separately for supporting livepatch already addresses reliability. So, if that
gets reviewed and accepted, we don't even need patches 4 thru 6.

If you are OK with that, I can resend v16 with just patches 1 thru 3. Let me know.

Madhavan


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
	sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:19:01 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <66545c21-cfcf-60eb-4acf-39be99520369@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220623173224.GB16966@willie-the-truck>



On 6/23/22 12:32, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 04:07:11PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> I have synced this patch series to v5.19-rc2.
>> I have also removed the following patch.
>>
>> 	[PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>>
>> as HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE depends on STACK_VALIDATION which is not present
>> yet. This patch will be added in the future once Objtool is enhanced to
>> provide stack validation in some form.
> 
> Given that it's not at all obvious that we're going to end up using objtool
> for arm64, does this patch series gain us anything in isolation?
> 

BTW, I have synced my patchset to 5.19-rc2 and sent it as v15.

So, to answer your question, patches 1 thru 3 in v15 are still useful even if we don't
consider reliable stacktrace. These patches reorganize the unwinder code based on
comments from both Mark Rutland and Mark Brown. Mark Brown has already OKed them.
If Mark Rutland OKes them, we should upstream them.

I can drop patches 4 thru 6. Actually, the objtool patch series that I have
sent separately for supporting livepatch already addresses reliability. So, if that
gets reviewed and accepted, we don't even need patches 4 thru 6.

If you are OK with that, I can resend v16 with just patches 1 thru 3. Let me know.

Madhavan


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

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-24  5:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <ff68fb850d42e1adaa6a0a6c9c258acabb898b24>
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 1/6] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 2/6] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 3/6] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 5/6] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02   ` [RFC PATCH v15 6/6] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02     ` madvenka
2022-06-17 20:50   ` [RFC PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 20:50     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 13:00   ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27 13:00     ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27 17:06     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 17:06       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH " madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07   ` madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 1/6] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  7:39     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  7:39       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 2/6] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  7:39     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  7:39       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 3/6] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:21     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:21       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  4:51       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:51         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:32     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:32       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  5:01       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  5:01         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 5/6] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:46     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:46       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  5:06       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  5:06         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07   ` [PATCH v15 6/6] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07     ` madvenka
2022-06-26  8:57     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  8:57       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  5:53       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  5:53         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-23 17:32   ` [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Will Deacon
2022-06-23 17:32     ` Will Deacon
2022-06-24  5:19     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2022-06-24  5:19       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24  5:27       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24  5:27         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-26  9:18       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-26  9:18         ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27  4:33         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:33           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 16:32           ` Kalesh Singh
2022-06-27 16:32             ` Kalesh Singh
2022-06-27 17:04             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 17:04               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:48         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  4:48           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27  9:42           ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27  9:42             ` Will Deacon
2022-06-24 11:42     ` Mark Brown
2022-06-24 11:42       ` Mark Brown
2022-06-24 22:15       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24 22:15         ` 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=66545c21-cfcf-60eb-4acf-39be99520369@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --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.