From: "Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@suse.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm64: Add initial set of stack unwinder self tests
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:55:32 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220630065532.i3alwmaenkooiwxw@suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yrx2xwbYMfcl8Qok@sirena.org.uk>
Hi,
On 06-29 16:59, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 05:10:00PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> > Add kunit tests for obvious cases where stack unwind could be needed.
> > Like these:
> >
> > * Unwind a separate task
> > * Unwind starting from caller
> > * Unwind from irq context
> > * Unwind from kprobe handler called via ftrace
> > * Unwind from ftrace handler
> > * Unwind through kretprobed function
> > * Unwind from kretprobe handler
> >
> > Tests are completely based on code used in s390 unwinder tests.
> > Cases which where not relevant to aarch64 where removed and
> > some places where adjusted to address aarch64 specifics.
>
> I think this would be a bit easier to digest if it were a series which
> builds things up with the test cases in individual patches, or at least
> things like ftrace and kprobes split out a bit more, rather than every
> single test all at once. I've got a few *very* superficial comments
> below, I think the code is fine but there's several moving pieces to
> check.
Ok. I will split and resend.
>
> > +/*
> > + * Calls test_arch_stack_walk() which is handy wrapper of aarch64 unwind
> > + * functionality, and verifies that the result contains unwindme_func2
> > + *followed by unwindme_func1.
>
> Missing space.
Sure.
>
> > + ret = register_ftrace_function(fops);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + ret = test_unwind_ftraced_func(u);
> > + unregister_ftrace_function(fops);
> > + } else {
> > + kunit_err(current_test,
> > + "failed to register ftrace handler (%d)\n", ret);
> > + }
>
> Shouldn't we return an error here?
Error will be returned once we remove test_unwind_ftraced_func
address from ftrace filters.
Regards,
Ivan
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-30 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-24 14:09 [PATCH 0/1] arm64: Add stack unwinder unit tests Ivan T. Ivanov
2022-06-24 14:10 ` [PATCH 1/1] arm64: Add initial set of stack unwinder self tests Ivan T. Ivanov
2022-06-29 15:59 ` Mark Brown
2022-06-30 6:55 ` Ivan T. Ivanov [this message]
2022-07-06 12:31 ` [PATCH 0/1] arm64: Add stack unwinder unit tests Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220630065532.i3alwmaenkooiwxw@suse \
--to=iivanov@suse.de \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox