[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez2L5eBfU57_bFnSPSN7DUrocJB56wBLR6cE0e_5DdkURg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:12:16 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Dave Jones <dsj@...com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] x86/unwind/orc: Add more unwinder warnings
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:31 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> Make sure warnings are displayed for all error scenarios (except when
> encountering an empty unwind hint).
[...]
> /* End-of-stack check for kernel threads: */
> if (orc->sp_reg == ORC_REG_UNDEFINED) {
> - if (!orc->end)
> + if (!orc->end) {
> + /*
> + * This is reported as an error for the caller, but
> + * otherwise it isn't worth warning about. In theory
> + * it can only happen when hitting UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY in
> + * entry code, close to a kernel exit point.
> + */
> goto err;
But UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY sets end=1, right? And this is the branch for
end==0. What am I missing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists