[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120725171643.GF946@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:16:43 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: acme@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...e.hu,
paulus@...ba.org, cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, eranian@...gle.com,
gorcunov@...nvz.org, tzanussi@...il.com, mhiramat@...hat.com,
robert.richter@....com, fche@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
drepper@...il.com, asharma@...com, benjamin.redelings@...cent.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] perf, x86: Add copy_from_user_nmi_nochk for best
effort copy
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:11:53PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:14:26PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Adding copy_from_user_nmi_nochk that provides the best effort
> > copy regardless the requesting size crossing the task boundary.
> >
> > This is going to be useful for stack dump we need in post
> > DWARF CFI based unwind, where we have predefined size of
> > the user stack to dump, and we need to store the most of
> > the requested dump size, regardless this size is crossing
> > the task boundary.
>
> What does that imply when we cross this limit? Are we still in the
> task stack?
We store all we could from 'stack pointer' to 'stack pointer' + dump size.
I discussed this with Oleg and we could probably find vma for the 'stack pointer'
and check for its size and narrow the dump - maybe more complex, but probably faster
in comparison with dumping pages we're not interested in.
thanks,
jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists