linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: function_graph: dump real return addr in call trace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:55:43 +0800
From:	libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<zhouchengming1@...wei.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	<xiexiuqi@...wei.com>, Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
	<guohanjun@...wei.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: function_graph: dump real return addr in
 call trace



在 2015/10/20 23:32, Catalin Marinas 写道:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:18:12AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:51:33 +0100
>> Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this the same old problem caused by e306dfd06fcb ("ARM64: unwind: Fix
>>> PC calculation")? I've said previously that I'm happy to revert that if
>>> we're the only architecture with this behaviour, but Akashi resisted
>>> because there are other issues with ftrace that he was hoping to address
>>> and they would resolve this too.
>>
>> Just a reference, but this patch is pretty much exactly what x86
>> currently has. I wonder if I should make that function generic for all
>> archs to use.
>>
>> If you accept this patch, I can look at what archs do and pull out the
>> common code and place it into the core code and have the archs call
>> that instead.
>
> The difference I see from the sh and x86 version is that we have this -4
> on arm64, introduced by e306dfd06fcb as Will mentioned above (it seemed
> to have caused more problems that it solved). I think we should revert
> that commit first just to be in line with other architectures and then
> apply additional fixes as needed.
>
> Question for Li Bin: is your patch still needed if we revert commit
> e306dfd06fcb?
>

It still be needed, but it can be implemented in generic for all archs
as Steve suggested.

Thanks,
Li Bin

> Thanks.
>

--
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/