From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
jmorris@namei.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 17:11:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:00:17PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> Other reliability checks will be added in the future.
...
> + frame->reliable = true;
> +
All these checks are good checks but as you say there's more stuff that
we need to add (like your patch 2 here) so I'm slightly nervous about
actually setting the reliable flag here without even a comment. Equally
well there's no actual use of this until arch_stack_walk_reliable() gets
implemented so it's not like it's causing any problems and it gives us
the structure to start building up the rest of the checks.
The other thing I guess is the question of if we want to bother flagging
frames as unrelaible when we return an error; I don't see an issue with
it and it may turn out to make it easier to do something in the future
so I'm fine with that.
[-- 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:[~2021-05-21 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503>
2021-05-16 4:00 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-05-16 4:00 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack " madvenka
2021-05-21 16:11 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-05-21 17:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:42 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:47 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:53 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 18:48 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 18:59 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 19:11 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 19:16 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 19:41 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 20:08 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-25 21:44 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-16 4:00 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, blacklist them " madvenka
2021-05-19 2:06 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-05-19 3:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-19 19:27 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-20 2:00 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:18 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Stack trace reliability checks " Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:47 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:48 ` 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=20210521161117.GB5825@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=pasha.tatashin@soleen.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 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).