archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: Unwinder enhancements for reliable stack trace
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:33:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1746 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 01:20:49PM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 2/23/21 1:02 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:12:43PM -0600, wrote:

> >> Reliable stack trace function
> >> =============================
> >>
> >> Implement arch_stack_walk_reliable(). This function walks the stack like
> >> the existing stack trace functions with a couple of additional checks:

> > Again, this should be at least one separate patch.  How does this ensure
> > that we don't have any issues with any of the various probe mechanisms?
> > If there's no need to explicitly check anything that should be called
> > out in the changelog.

> I am trying to do this in an incremental fashion. I have to study the probe
> mechanisms a little bit more before I can come up with a solution. But
> if you want to see that addressed in this patch set, I could do that.
> It will take a little bit of time. That is all.

Handling of the probes stuff seems like it's critical to reliable stack
walk so we shouldn't claim to have support for reliable stack walk
without it.  If it was a working implementation we could improve that'd
be one thing but this would be buggy which is a different thing.

> >> +	(void) on_accessible_stack(task, stackframe, &info);

> > Shouldn't we return NULL if we are not on an accessible stack?

> The prev_fp has already been checked by the unwinder in the previous
> frame. That is why I don't check the return value. If that is acceptable,
> I will add a comment.

TBH if you're adding the comment it seems like you may as well add the
check, it's not like it's expensive and it means there's no possibility
that some future change could result in this assumption being broken.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-24 12:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bc4761a47ad08ab7fdd555fc8094beb8fc758d33>
2021-02-23 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/1] " madvenka
2021-02-23 18:12   ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] " madvenka
2021-02-23 19:02     ` Mark Brown
2021-02-23 19:20       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-24 12:33         ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-02-24 19:26           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-24 12:17     ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-24 19:34       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-25 11:58         ` Mark Rutland
2021-03-01 16:58           ` 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:

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

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: Unwinder enhancements for reliable stack trace' \

* 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).