[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+tx6DZyoQ362lUM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:35:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/entry: Fix unwinding from kprobe on PUSH/POP
instruction
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:43:57PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Fix it by annotating the #BP exception as a non-signal stack frame,
> > which tells the ORC unwinder to decrement the instruction pointer before
> > looking up the corresponding ORC entry.
>
> Just to make it clear, this sounds like a 'hack' use of non-signal stack
> frame. If so, can we change the flag name as 'literal' or 'non-literal' etc?
> I concern that the 'signal' flag is used differently in the future.
Oooh, bike-shed :-) Let me suggest trap=1, where a trap is a fault with
a different return address, specifically the instruction after the
faulting instruction.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists