[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180810204449.4asgonydn6yfb6kq@treble>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:44:49 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: reliable stacktraces
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> This is more an RFC in the original sense: is this basically
> the correct approach? (as I had to tweak the API a bit).
>
> In particular the code does not detect interrupts and exception
> frames, and does not yet check whether the code address is valid.
> The latter check would also have to be omitted for the latest frame
> on other tasks' stacks. This would require some more tweaking.
>
> unwind_frame() now reports whether we had to stop normally or due to
> an error condition; walk_stackframe() will pass that info.
> __save_stack_trace() is used for a start to check the validity of a
> frame; maybe save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() will need its own callback.
>
> Any comments welcome.
>
> Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
Before we do this we'll need the same analysis we did for ppc64le to
figure out if objtool is needed.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists