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=-14.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 D1514C47087 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4AE613C1 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233437AbhEYVqQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2021 17:46:16 -0400 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:33798 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230409AbhEYVqP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2021 17:46:15 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.32] (unknown [47.187.214.213]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E49AC20B7178; Tue, 25 May 2021 14:44:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com E49AC20B7178 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1621979085; bh=xNF+N2LJWV8nwWOJm1bYsEtpnJX3GGsqwoncmJEKa0E=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Uqo5qnXPyulwX2at001SEAKO9KxFLXfTtq/SlfdCOzqZfnYtByBcJ/yxxwyX488hi Nz6n8J9n/Km5blOVu+oseJsqCdWr4NgVOuHCWF1DPe3aKVSSubajbvqX0HAAtCwuMx NaSlCpCrZf6Cs4Ble18bydy9gxnNG5q4IaWzHckM= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder To: Mark Brown Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.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 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> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Message-ID: <7f9366bd-1973-bc07-5314-45792f256dc1@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 16:44:44 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: live-patching@vger.kernel.org On 5/21/21 12:53 PM, 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. > OK. I will address the comments so far and send out v5. Thanks. Madhavan