[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121031224523.GF4386@ivy.homofaber>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:45:23 +0100
From: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Jun" <jun.zhang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net" <oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Sometimes, there is OOPS happened when we use oprofile.
On 31.10.12 14:33:17, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'm vaguely concerned about the following:
>
> + * To always return a non-null
> + * stack pointer we fall back to regs as stack if no previous stack
> + * exists.
>
> The logic being that if there is no stack pointer and the stack is
> too empty, to simply assume regs point to the top of the stack? Is
> this possible to ever be actually seen?
I discussed this with Steven too (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/6/322)
and we both had a bad feeling with returning a null pointer by
kernel_stack_pointer() (implemented in version 1 of this patch). It
could be null if tinfo->previous_esp is null (last stack). Not sure
when this may happen.
So using regs as fallback seemed to be ok as this was in for years:
7b6c6c7 x86, 32-bit: fix kernel_trap_sp()
-Robert
--
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