linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
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 12:47:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210521174242.GD5825@sirena.org.uk>



On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:23:52PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 5/21/21 11:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:00:17PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> 
>>>> +	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
> 
>> OK. So how about changing the field from a flag to an enum that says exactly
>> what happened with the frame?
> 
> TBH I think the code is fine, or rather will be fine when it gets as far
> as actually being used - this was more a comment about when we flip this
> switch.
> 

OK.

>> Also, the caller can get an exact idea of why the stack trace failed.
> 
> I'm not sure anything other than someone debugging things will care
> enough to get the code out and then decode it so it seems like it'd be
> more trouble than it's worth, we're unlikely to be logging the code as
> standard.
> 

OK.

>>> 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
> 
>> Initially, I thought that there is no need to flag it for errors. But Josh
>> had a comment that the stack trace is indeed unreliable on errors. Again, the
>> word unreliable is the one causing the problem.
> 
> My understanding there is that arch_stack_walk_reliable() should be
> returning an error if either the unwinder detected an error or if any
> frame in the stack is flagged as unreliable so from the point of view of
> users it's just looking at the error code, it's more that there's no
> need for arch_stack_walk_reliable() to consider the reliability
> information if an error has been detected and nothing else looks at the
> reliability information.
> 
> 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()?

Madhavan

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

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-21 17:50 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 " madvenka
2021-05-16  4:00   ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack " madvenka
2021-05-21 16:11     ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:23       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:42         ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:47           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
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=26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@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=jthierry@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=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder' \
    /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

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).