From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
Cc: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>,
loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
loongson-kernel@lists.loongnix.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Check unwind_error() in arch_stack_walk()
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 07:25:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f61ac027-0068-40f0-87bd-17f916141884@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <253a5dfcb7e41e44d15232e1891e7ea9d39dc953.camel@xry111.site>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:35:34PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 14:29 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > We can see the following messages with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y on
> > LoongArch:
> >
> > BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> > turning off the locking correctness validator.
> >
> > This is because stack_trace_save() returns a big value after call
> > arch_stack_walk(), here is the call trace:
> >
> > save_trace()
> > stack_trace_save()
> > arch_stack_walk()
> > stack_trace_consume_entry()
> >
> > arch_stack_walk() should return immediately if unwind_next_frame()
> > failed, no need to do the useless loops to increase the value of
> > c->len in stack_trace_consume_entry(), then we can fix the above
> > problem.
> >
> > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8a44ad71-68d2-4926-892f-72bfc7a67e2a@roeck-us.net/
> > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
>
> The fix makes sense, but I'm asking the same question again (sorry if
> it's noisy): should we Cc stable@vger.kernel.org and/or make a PR for
> 6.3?
>
> To me a bug fixes should be backported into all stable branches affected
> by the bug, unless there is some serious difficulty. As 6.3 release
> will work on launched 3A5000 boards out-of-box, people may want to stop
> staying on the leading edge and use a LTS/stable release series. We
> can't just say (or behave like) "we don't backport, please use latest
> mainline" IMO :).
It is a bug fix, isn't it ? It should be backported to v6.1+. Otherwise,
if your policy is to not backport bug fixes, I might as well stop testing
loongarch on all but the most recent kernel branch. Let me know if this is
what you want. If so, I think you should let all other regression testers
know that they should only test loongarch on mainline and possibly on
linux-next.
Thanks,
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-21 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-21 6:29 [PATCH] LoongArch: Check unwind_error() in arch_stack_walk() Tiezhu Yang
2023-03-21 12:35 ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-03-21 14:25 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2023-03-22 0:50 ` Huacai Chen
2023-03-22 2:20 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-03-23 1:30 ` Huacai Chen
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=f61ac027-0068-40f0-87bd-17f916141884@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@xen0n.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=loongson-kernel@lists.loongnix.cn \
--cc=xry111@xry111.site \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
/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).