linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:24:36 +0900
From:	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	catalin.marinas@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	jungseoklee85@...il.com, olof@...om.net, broonie@...nel.org,
	david.griego@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack
 tracer

On 10/29/2015 12:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:01:37PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64.
>> The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more
>> issues[2].
>> (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.)
>>
>> I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except
>> for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about
>> introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking
>> through from an interrupt stack to a process stack.
>> (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.)
>>
>> Basically,
>> patch1 corresponds to the original issue.
>> patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer.
>> patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer).
>> patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function).
>> patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences
>> between x86 and arm64).
>>
>> Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are
>> acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default
>> stack tracer.
>
> Given the comments and kbuild robot build errors, do you plan to post a
> new version of this series?

Yes, I do.
Do you have any comments that I should address before submitting a new version?
Apart from build errors, I admit that I should drop patch #4 ("arm64: ftrace:
allow for tracing leaf functions") just because I was somewhat confused.
I confirmed that "-pg" option actually disables omit-leaf-stack-frame.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> Will
>
--
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/