[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151106154257.GP6087@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:42:58 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>, catalin.marinas@....com,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:50:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > FRAME_POINTER is defined in lib/Kconfig.debug, it is unnecessary to redefine
> > > it in arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug.
> >
> > It might be worth noting that this adds a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL
> > for building with frame pointers. I'm ok with that (it appears to be
> > enabled in defconfig and follows the vast majority of other archs) but
> > it is a change in behaviour.
> >
> > With that:
> >
> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>
> The code in arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c assumes we have frame
> pointers regardless of FRAME_POINTER. Depending on what the compiler
> decides to use x29 for, we could get some weird fake unwinding and/or
> dodgy memory accesses.
>
> I think we should first audit the uses of frame pointers to ensure that
> they are guarded for !FRAME_POINTER.
Good point. The perf callchain code suffers from a similar issue.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists