From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <duwe@lst.de>
Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3zyX4b036VzF1ll
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 02:54:22 +1100 (AEDT)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:54:12 +0100
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
 Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ppc64le save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable (Was:
 HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE)
Message-ID: <20180309165412.78646b45@blackhole.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20180309084333.23287074@gmail.com>
References: <20171004152516.25803-1-kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171005124313.GA25100@lst.de>
 <9f388c9a-8d74-865a-b113-f77322918b39@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171017144733.GB2136@lst.de>
 <95e6f942-88b7-0208-0eb0-2f5462aec410@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171020120739.GA20306@lst.de> <1508547548.5662.2.camel@gmail.com>
 <39bb7180-1adf-4df6-c9ba-c6f92754767f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171212113912.GA1907@lst.de>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.1712121308440.21907@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20180227160924.GA19111@lst.de> <20180309084333.23287074@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:43:33 +1100
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:09:24 +0100
> Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> wrote:

> > +save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > +                              struct stack_trace *trace)  
> 
> Just double checking this is called under the task_rq_lock, so its
> safe to call task_stack_page() as opposed to try_get_task_stack()

Yes. IIRC a comment at the call site mentioned it.

[...]
> > +	if (sp < stack_page + sizeof(struct thread_struct)
> > +	    || sp > stack_page + THREAD_SIZE -
> > STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD)
> > +		return 1;  
> 
> Some of this is already present in validate_sp(), it also validates
> irq stacks, should we just reuse that?

This goes a bit along one of Josh's points; I'll answer there, OK?

[...]

> Looks good to me otherwise.
> 
> Acked-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Thanks.

	Torsten