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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 281ABC282D7 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (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 6DC6820882 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:24:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6DC6820882 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43qMxr1JzgzDqVR for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:24:48 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43qMv33hwFzDqTl for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:22:23 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43qMv31SbXz9s9h; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:22:23 +1100 (AEDT) From: Michael Ellerman To: Jiri Kosina , Joe Lawrence Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] powerpc/livepatch: reliable stack unwinder fixes In-Reply-To: References: <20190122155724.27557-1-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:22:22 +1100 Message-ID: <87y372pc75.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Nicolai Stange , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Torsten Duwe , Josh Poimboeuf , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Jiri Kosina writes: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote: > >> This patchset fixes a false negative report (ie, unreliable) from the >> ppc64 reliable stack unwinder, discussed here [1] when it may >> inadvertently trip over a stale exception marker left on the stack. >> >> The first two patches fix this bug. Nicolai's change clears the marker >> from the stack when an exception is finished. The next patch modifies >> the unwinder to only look for such on stack elements when the ABI >> guarantees that they will actually be initialized. >> >> The final two patches consist of code cleanups that Nicolai and I >> spotted during the development of the fixes. >> >> Testing included re-running the original test scenario (loading a >> livepatch module on ppc64le) on a 5.0.0-rc2 kernel as well as a RHEL-7 >> backport. I ran internal tests on the RHEL-7 backport and no new test >> failures were introduced. I believe that Nicolai has done the same >> with respect to the first patch. >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7f468285-b149-37e2-e782-c9e538b997a9@redhat.com/ >> >> Joe Lawrence (3): >> powerpc/livepatch: relax reliable stack tracer checks for first-frame >> powerpc/livepatch: small cleanups in save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() >> powerpc/livepatch: return -ERRNO values in >> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() >> >> Nicolai Stange (1): >> powerpc/64s: Clear on-stack exception marker upon exception return > > Michael, are you fine with this going through LP tree, or do you plan to > take it through yours? I'm happy to take it, unless there's some reason you'd rather it go via the LP tree? I don't have any automated live patch tests, but I assume if it's in linux-next someone can test it? :) cheers