[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160824184327.ta3u3dckjmmc7dkx@treble>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:43:27 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/dumpstack: make printk_stack_address() more
generally useful
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 11:50 -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Change printk_stack_address() to be useful when called by an unwinder
> > outside the context of dump_trace().
> >
> > Specifically:
> >
> > - printk_stack_address()'s 'data' argument is always used as the log
> > level string. Make that explicit.
>
> If this is true, and I'm not sure it is as I believe
> there are static strings emitted like EOE and IRQ,
> shouldn't this bubble up through the calling tree?
>
> > - Call touch_nmi_watchdog().
> []
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
> []
> > @@ -26,10 +26,11 @@ int kstack_depth_to_print = 3 * STACKSLOTS_PER_LINE;
> > static int die_counter;
> >
> > static void printk_stack_address(unsigned long address, int reliable,
> > - void *data)
> > + char *log_lvl)
> > {
> > + touch_nmi_watchdog();
> > printk("%s [<%p>] %s%pB\n",
> > - (char *)data, (void *)address, reliable ? "" : "? ",
> > + log_lvl, (void *)address, reliable ? "" : "? ",
> > (void *)address);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -148,7 +149,6 @@ static int print_trace_stack(void *data, char *name)
> > */
> > static int print_trace_address(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable)
> > {
> > - touch_nmi_watchdog();
> > printk_stack_address(addr, reliable, data);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> like for data here?
This function needs to keep its 'void *data' argument because it's a
callback for stacktrace_ops, so it has to conform to the callback
interface. 'data' is used for passing a pointer to an opaque data
structure to the callback.
Also this is the only caller of printk_stack_address(), so there's
nowhere else to bubble it up to.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists