archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <>
To: Petr Mladek <>
Cc: Mark Brown <>,, Jiri Kosina <>,
	Joe Lawrence <>,
	Jonathan Corbet <>, Miroslav Benes <>,,,
	Josh Poimboeuf <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Documentation: livepatch: document reliable stacktrace
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:50:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210118175054.GB38844@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YAWU0D50KH4mVTgn@alley>

Hi Petr,

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:02:31PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2021-01-15 17:16:17, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I've made a few assumptions about preferred behaviour, notably:
> > 
> > * If you can reliably unwind through exceptions, you should (as x86_64
> >   does).

IIRC this was confirmed as desireable, and the text already reflects

> > * It's fine to omit ftrace_return_to_handler and other return
> >   trampolines so long as these are not subject to patching and the
> >   original return address is reported. Most architectures do this for
> >   ftrace_return_handler, but not other return trampolines.

Likewise I think we agreed this was fine, given these were not
themselves subkect to patching.

> > * For cases where link register unreliability could result in duplicate
> >   entries in the trace or an inverted trace, I've assumed this should be
> >   treated as unreliable. This specific case shouldn't matter to
> >   livepatching, but I assume that that we want a reliable trace to have
> >   the correct order.

I don't think we had any comments either way on this, but I think it's
sane to say this for now and later relax it if we need to.

... so I reckon we can just delete all this as Josh suggests. Any acks
for the patch itself tacitly agrees with these points. :)


      parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-18 17:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-15 17:16 [PATCH v4] Documentation: livepatch: document reliable stacktrace Mark Brown
2021-01-18 14:02 ` Petr Mladek
2021-01-18 14:54   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-18 17:50   ` Mark Rutland [this message]

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210118175054.GB38844@C02TD0UTHF1T.local \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).