[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60a168b7-2e86-26b0-a903-fab38b74411d@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:24:41 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: make __get_wchan() use arch_stack_walk()
On 2023/4/12 21:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:15:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 10:08:22PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 04:15:52PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> Make __get_wchan() use arch_stack_walk() directly to
>>>> avoid open-coding of unwind logic.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
>>>
>>> Can we just have a shared version of __get_wchan() for all
>>> CONFIG_ARCH_STACKWALK arches?
>>
>> Didn't I do that a while back ? I can't seem to actually find the
>> patch-set though :/
>
> Could be this series:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211022150933.883959987@infradead.org
Oh, I vaguely remember the beginning because I was trying to fix
get_wchan() not supporting ORC unwinder on x86 [1], and then you sent a
patch set, and the patch [2] in this patch set tried to implement the
shared version of __get_wchan().
[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211008111626.271115116@infradead.org/
[2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211008111626.392918519@infradead.org/
>
> And this here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjHbKfck1Ws4Y0pUZ7bxdjU9eh2WK0EFsv65utfeVkT9Q@mail.gmail.com/
>
> might be why I dropped it.. I can't remember.
Didn't realize I had replied to this email before.
But I also don't see why you dropped it. Looks like you have fixed the
UAF problem.
So do we still need to implement a shared version of __get_wchan()?
If we still need it, do I need to send it again? Or just pick your
previous patch directly? Both are fine to me. :)
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists