archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <>
To: Mark Brown <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: Unwinder enhancements for reliable stack trace
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:26:56 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 2/24/21 6:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

OK. I will address the probe stuff in my resend.

>>>> +	(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.

OK. I will add the check.



  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-24 19:28 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
2021-02-24 19:26           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
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).