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 1BA03C4707A for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9394613DB for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236008AbhEUTRv (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 15:17:51 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:23150 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235850AbhEUTRu (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 15:17:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621624584; 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=NM9RRRkodr6aZSYSHCjBSRNeYjgk1EB6pEubMwSkZ4Q=; b=P1qvRWFf7LCwA/pDuceEArzr+t/PL3OoyecNYbMi05q14Wi1/maFDnpH76Px0VxZBzrHVT kAaQKa9qBfQUQtcVfvVwXkvbqPfobMXDUKXijJSbmohBxD5U8wedbLpBc0zeK6ww3EE1eq xiw7gj6DPaPRMco2CCQ9Nc5qXe3vdKc= Received: from mail-qv1-f69.google.com (mail-qv1-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-219-vZxhqZGKN5G2w_6A_QaoaA-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 15:16:21 -0400 X-MC-Unique: vZxhqZGKN5G2w_6A_QaoaA-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f69.google.com with SMTP id v3-20020a0cdd830000b02901efe0c3571eso15180445qvk.5 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:16:21 -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=NM9RRRkodr6aZSYSHCjBSRNeYjgk1EB6pEubMwSkZ4Q=; b=DKXcDOk+TGb9VyPsEdEImB2kV9eYpuPeMeFeryUouZ9dfV4TQqyBxhxq+A/jRhCTT4 xf+UCoqJ/oyHxHhdyf92/a3ZnpY9YwOopom0lrjGecLaa3V6ccLyPYlNRvpXczFllyML K8nLondAsCL7ib/J8ahcUba+ajvrD0a1ERTcB31fxz4l5Up7Z3Ckl7x94YbYyNuu3KHZ 01E/rpWnn9ZD2xV6y1bKOvyAWdOEqae5gSDvlu3usrOHS1DqrlQ6kUm8DILDw7trkS1z 3i36jzzEqCDj4pfG3Yi2EMEwWuofcY6IgwA+GcmBly5qW9hpqCiHELBT2v6o74TOyWJw GT3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531b+6jdxiuCWyCibdJWn3PP/TmJEBSMZWTVpo+nIKlGfPuZ0Gda X3fSn7caUc1xGiQKnfgfRNAbA5qnRiSla/nE/mT6g1KYSbWTy87MlCRU58xconE+wNzkqlS5qV0 umo5PBoPaguRRSUGKyZUK38rVZA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d4c:: with SMTP id h12mr13171132qtb.130.1621624580603; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:16:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/AxR5/vGQaVvvOLN4V3Hm0lhLDxLsaGyXvxTwBIQiN8NOkrJ4IY8ylrPj8PFks7thayLIJw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d4c:: with SMTP id h12mr13171107qtb.130.1621624580364; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from treble ([68.52.236.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f19sm5736116qkg.70.2021.05.21.12.16.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 May 2021 12:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:16:08 -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: <20210521191608.f24sldzhpg3hyq32@treble> References: <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> <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: live-patching@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:11:45PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > 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. Or is frame->reliable supposed to be checked after all? Looking at the code again, I'm not sure. Either way it would be good to document the interface more clearly in a comment above the function. -- Josh