[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eacc6098-a15f-c07a-2730-cb16cb8e1982@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:23:39 -0500
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, mark.rutland@....com
Cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, jthierry@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack
trace unreliable
On 4/8/21 11:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:43:12PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> When CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS is enabled and tracing is activated
>> for a function, the ftrace infrastructure is called for the function at
>> the very beginning. Ftrace creates two frames:
>
> This looks good to me however I'd really like someone who has a firmer
> understanding of what ftrace is doing to double check as it is entirely
> likely that I am missing cases here, it seems likely that if I am
> missing stuff it's extra stuff that needs to be added and we're not
> actually making use of the reliability information yet.
>
OK. So, do you have some specific reviewer(s) in mind? Apart from yourself, Mark Rutland and
Josh Poimboeuf, these are some reviewers I can think of (in alphabetical order):
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Sorry if I missed out any of the other experts.
Thanks.
Madhavan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists