[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170327112433.728ba8c1@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:24:33 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace/x86: fix x86-32 triple fault with graph tracing
and suspend-to-ram
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:01:53 +0200
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de> wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * When resuming from suspend-to-ram, this function can be indirectly
> > + * called from early CPU startup code while the CPU is in real mode,
> > + * which would fail miserably. Make sure the stack pointer is a
> > + * virtual address.
> > + *
> > + * This check isn't as accurate as virt_addr_valid(), but it should be
> > + * good enough for this purpose, and it's fast.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely((long)__builtin_frame_address(0) >= 0)) return;
>
> The coding style requires the `return;` to be on a separate line.
Correct, and new versions of a patch should always start a new thread
(unless it's a single update of a patch in a long patch series).
Otherwise they get ignored. (hint hint)
-- Steve
>
> > +
> > if (unlikely(ftrace_graph_is_dead()))
> > return;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists