linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:36:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210416153608.GD5560@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8367fe9-6fd0-f962-422d-daa4548cc3b7@linux.microsoft.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:43:48AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

> How would you prefer I handle this? Should I place all SYM_CODE functions that
> are actually safe for the unwinder in a separate section? I could just take
> some approach and solve this. But I would like to get your opinion and Mark
> Rutland's opinion so we are all on the same page.

That sounds reasonable to me, obviously we'd have to look at how
exactly the annotation ends up getting done and general bikeshed colour
discussions.  I'm not sure if we want a specific "safe for unwinder
section" or to split things up into sections per reason things are safe
for the unwinder (kind of like what you were proposing for flagging
things as a problem), that might end up being useful for other things at
some point.

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

      reply	other threads:[~2021-04-16 15:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <705993ccb34a611c75cdae0a8cb1b40f9b218ebd>
2021-04-05 20:43 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2021-04-05 20:43   ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: Implement infrastructure for " madvenka
2021-04-08 15:15     ` Mark Brown
2021-04-08 17:17     ` Mark Brown
2021-04-08 19:30       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-08 23:30         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 11:57           ` Mark Brown
2021-04-05 20:43   ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: Mark a stack trace unreliable if an EL1 exception frame is detected madvenka
2021-04-05 20:43   ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable madvenka
2021-04-08 16:58     ` Mark Brown
2021-04-08 19:23       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 11:31         ` Mark Brown
2021-04-09 14:02           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 12:27     ` Mark Rutland
2021-04-09 17:23       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-05 20:43   ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Mark stack trace as unreliable if kretprobed functions are present madvenka
2021-04-09 12:09   ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks Mark Rutland
2021-04-09 17:16     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 21:37     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-09 22:05       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-09 22:32         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-09 22:53           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-11 17:54             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-12 16:59           ` Mark Brown
2021-04-13 22:53             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-04-14 12:24               ` Mark Brown
2021-04-12 17:36       ` Mark Brown
2021-04-12 19:55         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-13 11:02           ` Mark Brown
2021-04-14 10:23             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-14 12:35               ` Mark Brown
2021-04-16 14:43               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-04-16 15:36                 ` Mark Brown [this message]

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210416153608.GD5560@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).