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 97AA8C00E77 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708E36121E for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235048AbhEUTNN (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 15:13:13 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:38365 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230339AbhEUTNM (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 15:13:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621624309; 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=AgTjYRoCXt+viQH/qJRJYb9PrKJ06CJGgGIhtBqsK8q8VhawEmjDV2u5K4GusoDVeoBwOE xPi0Clnc2Lk0Xe/KoTf9J9NRHyB64Vau5T3hq16Nvy21QZDV9BR9gqeClhE3Y1f5sW5Omy owQj/lBmyHCW0j0JDYV0nbgr12rfYE8= Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-600-wu2WDvsuOwSUHD5-CynVtg-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 15:11:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wu2WDvsuOwSUHD5-CynVtg-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id e15-20020a0caa4f0000b02901eedbb09299so16431496qvb.15 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=lNq57mjtI+0RDEZgEG9YMnRng8DRp+O25/e4M7cjtqL+5/cXJX3M9BMntImP2QRuPY kI0DcMH1nwpY6uPBosU7FjJLJ8eqKIaNdRQNm4n+FC9B589Ey8+aaQGB/2yfJSTP+QQW x2W0MiaTy8DIUgw1dOm39T2GTGW8zc5tLrWPB8JkSvpNF+ReRiiNeINzxmeBY7GxtJij vlC4zGEELlKDClXgBiu6Hznpys5Hd8AYNc1aVMWLxp/VorNjKw82uuljSGKw+hEyBSui DWkSjMtSVdGr8GKmh8hIQhU1nJsLTIr1443Dqw6pYWWuFhMM7wYTHl3HtAA2qGUfpVKo WK2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530X3xh84okt/bGCxH+Z8VDc0mnJt+RkiWqgqUoEG1B1Jeu9VVq0 VzF+wVyQTCvibWfZ0m15JEdLZJR+msq4LoiErtmsX7eUaIPEkuQEAF8p2COw+KPqdf9twD5R9jy gYx4sCDoSWpOOMrGTzpV9ZJ4s X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5281:: with SMTP id v1mr14776333qvr.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: linux-kernel@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