From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] arm64: Terminate the stack trace at TASK_FRAME and EL0_FRAME
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:29:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fd5763e4-b649-683b-3038-7f221eed68a9@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210318182607.GO5469@sirena.org.uk>
On 3/18/21 1:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:57:55AM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>
>> + /* Terminal record, nothing to unwind */
>> + if (fp == (unsigned long) regs->stackframe) {
>> + if (regs->frame_type == TASK_FRAME ||
>> + regs->frame_type == EL0_FRAME)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>
> This is conflating the reliable stacktrace checks (which your series
> will later flag up with frame->reliable) with verifying that we found
> the bottom of the stack by looking for this terminal stack frame record.
> For the purposes of determining if the unwinder got to the bottom of the
> stack we don't care what stack type we're looking at, we just care if it
> managed to walk to this defined final record.
>
> At the minute nothing except reliable stack trace has any intention of
> checking the specific return code but it's clearer to be consistent.
>
So, you are saying that the type check is redundant. OK. I will remove it
and just return -ENOENT on reaching the final record.
Madhavan
_______________________________________________
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:[~2021-03-18 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <5997dfe8d261a3a543667b83c902883c1e4bd270>
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace madvenka
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] arm64: Implement stack trace termination record madvenka
2021-03-18 15:09 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-18 20:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-19 12:30 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-19 14:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-19 18:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-19 22:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 10:24 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 12:39 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/8] arm64: Implement frame types madvenka
2021-03-18 17:40 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-18 22:22 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-19 13:22 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-19 14:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-19 15:02 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-19 16:20 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-19 16:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 10:34 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] arm64: Terminate the stack trace at TASK_FRAME and EL0_FRAME madvenka
2021-03-18 18:26 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-18 20:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2021-03-23 10:36 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 12:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] arm64: Detect an EL1 exception frame and mark a stack trace unreliable madvenka
2021-03-23 10:42 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 12:46 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 13:04 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 13:31 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 14:33 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 15:22 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE " madvenka
2021-03-23 10:51 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 12:56 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 13:36 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 13:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 14:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 14:57 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 15:26 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 16:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 17:02 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 17:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 17:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 18:27 ` Mark Brown
2021-03-23 20:23 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 18:30 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 20:24 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 21:04 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 16:48 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-23 16:53 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-03-23 17:09 ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] arm64: Check the return PC of every stack frame madvenka
2021-03-15 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/8] arm64: Detect kretprobed functions in stack trace madvenka
2021-03-15 16:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 8/8] arm64: Implement arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2021-03-15 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace 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=fd5763e4-b649-683b-3038-7f221eed68a9@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--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=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).