[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e3fdff0-26ed-e786-e570-3f569bda1609@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:44:39 -0500
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org, nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/2] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability
checks
Hi Mark Rutland,
Could you please review this patch series when you get a chance?
I would really like to get a confirmation from you that there
are no gaps in this.
Thanks in advance!
Madhavan
On 6/4/21 10:29 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:49:15PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>
>> There are a number of places in kernel code where the stack trace is not
>> reliable. Enhance the unwinder to check for those cases and mark the
>> stack trace as unreliable. Once all of the checks are in place, the unwinder
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists