[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 17:11:17 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org,
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 v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
checks in the unwinder
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:00:17PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> Other reliability checks will be added in the future.
...
> + frame->reliable = true;
> +
All these checks are good checks but as you say there's more stuff that
we need to add (like your patch 2 here) so I'm slightly nervous about
actually setting the reliable flag here without even a comment. Equally
well there's no actual use of this until arch_stack_walk_reliable() gets
implemented so it's not like it's causing any problems and it gives us
the structure to start building up the rest of the checks.
The other thing I guess is the question of if we want to bother flagging
frames as unrelaible when we return an error; I don't see an issue with
it and it may turn out to make it easier to do something in the future
so I'm fine with that.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists