From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA81DC4707A for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B25461090 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:13:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3B25461090 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=TcgCjQZyziLR12Wzi5T7DIVrGbGOAspUGGWZ/wFI3AQ=; b=DGN1mRSfj74oa2y+o1v0nTB5Xh 2gLZPghZJPwo48TJ62FQYrUMMUQHDOw1Nk2bDFmaGU8+YuOaalPbnAlf6Qz1gFu2OyREYF1Ash+2e gxniAT58VFvWXp2UmwEnO9iyWmh3J366BpE1DLO2eba2r2rKfOemWDyTmQDtKED/EBKJZHfz/D3c9 7Amhz8RPpaxlEVPkSkpiMYpWR2c1MdkQChsZA3ATpkpCYC75q2Y7c73NV9VQBMNwwAs2aOZW2qEsd uM4zw+YoxQMfueFfrd/PLD0IQ/dK0yXe3yF7Xg1KWV4L1Qw/CNwfIg8i2sQcrdKEq0huKDKnsHoNr pvwF96Yw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=desiato.infradead.org) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lkAYy-000otq-5n; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:12:00 +0000 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lkAYt-000otX-Lz for linux-arm-kernel@desiato.infradead.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:11:56 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=nz98kMsw+FzS8L01GR0w0EVxwdrTPL2Z/BYSCEvqIsc=; b=v7Arv3b4LrkyJ8J1wOMu//omL8 M1B1yqmsJLi9fsnunU0VDs60Opga8XMoM3jKJoHquOJKlKIlZ7iQW6VnY/0XaVblMAwBehGgn9Rz7 QOSlQTmCJO/LfgQIMkoMb/+IfZaK/1QshsEAlCkvy/iOkSIyVMfhQLYuB7LLGPUNWJoH4Kgmp+881 GnIpe32r38DfERW5mP+6CemeWNGg5TcEvyo50zU3SufxrXOYKV4CmlJgVuoB2XGkp2s/HWz4zLJ/x WGX+xEn1iyfWfHqAbcBlaSDczsB6qOqepRy8/ibfpGi8Vj08cBU/3v7ScnSPsAFecN3rXqM6ZrAtc ilYTtknA==; Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lkAYp-00HNEI-K0 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:11:53 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621624310; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nz98kMsw+FzS8L01GR0w0EVxwdrTPL2Z/BYSCEvqIsc=; b=fjkKymjtuLZbkMOkr+7QaPUc/QpeJsxHgZZZhSj7YvA87njoJxYtVq6ZI9DjTFRx2xuxP9 Ka8O/Now85qoR/rSqmkpjJVsfUpTYC34qTEzMgmZv/V4hjxxONekjX7z9YwGbjpGZqk7PV kUTq3a6n4SE4pfbh0HumIZ414gUBYUM= Received: from mail-qk1-f200.google.com (mail-qk1-f200.google.com [209.85.222.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-422-8VLPNo2kMhyFSp2fRRDLOA-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 15:11:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8VLPNo2kMhyFSp2fRRDLOA-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id n3-20020a378b030000b02903a624ca95adso421535qkd.17 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=nz98kMsw+FzS8L01GR0w0EVxwdrTPL2Z/BYSCEvqIsc=; b=tjcnKNb634WnYP1nq36UfPsJrwNNMLMcey/LPtav1U/Q/1yvzdBSmOhsliSOnvQ9L4 yEj+5Kt1yKgjO4zbpq/jzUUQ7eHsUsJRto0vZZWzKjGq7MV7nI7XhTXASMmQT0griyjY NtNKnASI/Bats2mV16qAOOBIUq4j2Nz0y6D/QU6aOHpsJmXzfKb4svIgEbzk7wIiV9lm wsZ2LV0w5nRL3bbuvDPx9xv68PFICHtTErRUIE61jgghD1dt5P7fRgY3NUKFu+Brk5I4 8ifgZ6MGjCBnqp3+k+Q4msbDQLgBZrBcp3Y3V6bJgG3eS18TTqwFrq5SkhQc3ru1jxaD 0GEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533T68zwrImCp32HySE9WaAfKfYYMmDeVYzLL0c2svE1z4mGjqLk YOA7Q2YpajnXx2+7dV3m5HkQTFPCzSC3POKr1k0BlsykDKfwZSl83b6Jb6TAnp77GS+QAoePPoZ f7CBhQYFPkQqKkgddg7kRK82LB9kCjuXNvL0= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5281:: with SMTP id v1mr14776335qvr.56.1621624305393; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjZKT1phiUkfEYMYpJ5BVtH7F+86BAqoH6+mVzJaZJ5h4g+DjOWLKk81axhj747gk8xhKokw== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5281:: with SMTP id v1mr14776295qvr.56.1621624305075; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from treble ([68.52.236.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a27sm3922191qtn.97.2021.05.21.12.11.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:11:40 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Cc: Mark Brown , mark.rutland@arm.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 Message-ID: <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble> References: <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503> <20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk> <20210521174242.GD5825@sirena.org.uk> <26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@linux.microsoft.com> <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk> <20210521184817.envdg232b2aeyprt@treble> <74d12457-7590-bca2-d1ce-5ff82d7ab0d8@linux.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <74d12457-7590-bca2-d1ce-5ff82d7ab0d8@linux.microsoft.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=jpoimboe@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210521_121151_754690_BA0F6C9F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.94 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:59:16PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > > > On 5/21/21 1:48 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > >>> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > >>>> Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in > >>>> future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there. > >> > >>> So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false > >>> for errors? Which one do you prefer? > >> > >>> Josh, > >> > >>> Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()? > >> > >> I think it's fine to leave it as it is. > > > > Either way works for me, but if you remove those 'reliable = false' > > statements for stack corruption then, IIRC, the caller would still have > > some confusion between the end of stack error (-ENOENT) and the other > > errors (-EINVAL). > > > > I will leave it the way it is. That is, I will do reliable = false on errors > like you suggested. > > > So the caller would have to know that -ENOENT really means success. > > Which, to me, seems kind of flaky. > > > > Actually, that is why -ENOENT was introduced - to indicate successful > stack trace termination. A return value of 0 is for continuing with > the stack trace. A non-zero value is for terminating the stack trace. > > So, either we return a positive value (say 1) to indicate successful > termination. Or, we return -ENOENT to say no more stack frames left. > I guess -ENOENT was chosen. I see. So it's a tri-state return value, and frame->reliable is intended to be a private interface not checked by the callers. That makes sense, and probably fine, it's just perhaps a bit nonstandard compared to most Linux interfaces. -- Josh _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel