[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210504215248.oi3zay3memgqri33@treble>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 16:52:48 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, jthierry@...hat.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
checks in the unwinder
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:36:12PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
> unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
> struct stack_info info;
>
> + frame->reliable = true;
> +
Why set 'reliable' to true on every invocation of unwind_frame()?
Shouldn't it be remembered across frames?
Also, it looks like there are several error scenarios where it returns
-EINVAL but doesn't set 'reliable' to false.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists