From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:03:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210624160331.GD3912@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210624144021.GA17937@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:40:21PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> regular unwinds (e.g. so that we can have a backtrace idicate when a
> step is not reliable, like x86 does with '?'), and to do that we need to
> be a little more accurate.
There was the idea that was discussed a bit when I was more actively
working on this of just refactoring our unwinder infrastructure to be a
lot more like the x86 and (IIRC) S/390 in form. Part of the thing there
was that it'd mean that even where we're not able to actually share code
we'd have more of a common baseline for how things work and what works.
It'd make review, especially cross architecture review, of what's going
on a bit easier too - see some of the concerns Josh had about the
differences here for example. It'd be a relatively big bit of
refactoring though.
[-- 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:[~2021-06-24 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <ea0ef9ed6eb34618bcf468fbbf8bdba99e15df7d>
2021-05-26 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH v5 0/2] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2021-05-26 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-06-24 14:40 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-24 16:03 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-06-25 15:39 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-25 15:51 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-25 17:05 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-25 17:18 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-26 15:35 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-29 16:47 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-26 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2021-06-04 16:24 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-04 20:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-04 16:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-04 20:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-16 1:52 ` Suraj Jitindar Singh
2021-06-16 9:15 ` nobuta.keiya
2021-06-16 11:10 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-06-04 15:29 ` [RFC PATCH v5 0/2] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks Mark Brown
2021-06-04 20:44 ` 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=20210624160331.GD3912@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=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.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).