[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190529143510.GA11154@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:35:10 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Young Xiao <92siuyang@...il.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
mark.rutland@....com, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
acme@...hat.com, eranian@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix oops when kthread execs user process
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:25:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:05:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:55:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > if (user_mode(regs)) {
> >
> > Hmm, so it just occurred to me that Mark's observation is that the regs
> > can be junk in some cases. In which case, should we be checking for
> > kthreads first?
>
> task_pt_regs() can return garbage, but @regs is the exception (or
> perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs()) regs, and for those user_mode() had
> better be correct.
So what should we report for the idle task?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists