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=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 0C80EC4707A for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E195D613EC for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230339AbhEUTNO (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 15:13:14 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:24191 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235033AbhEUTNO (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 15:13:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621624310; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nz98kMsw+FzS8L01GR0w0EVxwdrTPL2Z/BYSCEvqIsc=; b=fjkKymjtuLZbkMOkr+7QaPUc/QpeJsxHgZZZhSj7YvA87njoJxYtVq6ZI9DjTFRx2xuxP9 Ka8O/Now85qoR/rSqmkpjJVsfUpTYC34qTEzMgmZv/V4hjxxONekjX7z9YwGbjpGZqk7PV kUTq3a6n4SE4pfbh0HumIZ414gUBYUM= Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-176-3UvYNvHpOaSNlcb0cB4i-A-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 15:11:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3UvYNvHpOaSNlcb0cB4i-A-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id s123-20020a3777810000b02902e9adec2313so17571534qkc.4 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=nz98kMsw+FzS8L01GR0w0EVxwdrTPL2Z/BYSCEvqIsc=; b=brJI+FovTawzxCrdnakXc0TPNh6M3y8tYs9otPtDEtzM5x2bh/JtgKFJ03KIAAauhs o6Qx6Haf4hxvieZdXmed4t1MAf/ZHZ0J0liDYweJFa8NUF2GWLUxhGgO0Co6qBp+8TkE 4cfimWImp4kPv7xiIJUuQihyeRjNozostTrz36MfYes+wxcL8UVpnKYCgRrKEh55DtM7 FOYyx7O18Tlg+zwKsGJGJ32e9uySTq4IAzYHQrrP6mF/v9/NHzatZh+HWV5KfrPGdHDt ZEf/S+qbg+OI/H3ZBJQStsKW1mDpr3pm/8i56BGQQXRQ56Hf0v8P17aYUe9euUtmYOBR WlbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NloWzSlZBiOu3bWooyRl/WcR56hvGwIkemKDAtKkTrq+8EVCC +CCxungsXchaphFZLQ9yVFf/drxNaBGDyilzYpuN4+bs5JNzXsS8jRHChwK8ZAaUuVJ5irK6630 4131u3CUmPdFmNUcPZwgo+psvWw== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5281:: with SMTP id v1mr14776332qvr.56.1621624305393; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjZKT1phiUkfEYMYpJ5BVtH7F+86BAqoH6+mVzJaZJ5h4g+DjOWLKk81axhj747gk8xhKokw== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5281:: with SMTP id v1mr14776295qvr.56.1621624305075; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from treble ([68.52.236.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a27sm3922191qtn.97.2021.05.21.12.11.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 May 2021 12:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:11:40 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Cc: Mark Brown , mark.rutland@arm.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 Message-ID: <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble> References: <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503> <20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk> <20210521174242.GD5825@sirena.org.uk> <26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@linux.microsoft.com> <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk> <20210521184817.envdg232b2aeyprt@treble> <74d12457-7590-bca2-d1ce-5ff82d7ab0d8@linux.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74d12457-7590-bca2-d1ce-5ff82d7ab0d8@linux.microsoft.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: live-patching@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:59:16PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > > > On 5/21/21 1:48 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > >>> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > >>>> 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()? > >> > >> I think it's fine to leave it as it is. > > > > Either way works for me, but if you remove those 'reliable = false' > > statements for stack corruption then, IIRC, the caller would still have > > some confusion between the end of stack error (-ENOENT) and the other > > errors (-EINVAL). > > > > I will leave it the way it is. That is, I will do reliable = false on errors > like you suggested. > > > So the caller would have to know that -ENOENT really means success. > > Which, to me, seems kind of flaky. > > > > Actually, that is why -ENOENT was introduced - to indicate successful > stack trace termination. A return value of 0 is for continuing with > the stack trace. A non-zero value is for terminating the stack trace. > > So, either we return a positive value (say 1) to indicate successful > termination. Or, we return -ENOENT to say no more stack frames left. > I guess -ENOENT was chosen. I see. So it's a tri-state return value, and frame->reliable is intended to be a private interface not checked by the callers. That makes sense, and probably fine, it's just perhaps a bit nonstandard compared to most Linux interfaces. -- Josh