From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: anurag19aggarwal@gmail.com (Anurag Aggarwal) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:49:51 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V6] ARM : unwinder : Prevent data abort due to stack overflow In-Reply-To: <16479184.50751386647682015.JavaMail.weblogic@epv6ml09> References: <16479184.50751386647682015.JavaMail.weblogic@epv6ml09> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org >>+ if (*vsp >= (unsigned long *)ctrl->sp_high) >>+ return -URC_FAILURE; I tested the same patch, by adding a printk statement in the above if condition. The print statement I added came a few times as a part of dmesg log. I think this proves that such corner cases are being handled by the above code Regards Anurag On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Anurag Aggarwal wrote: >>Reviewed-by: Dave Martin >> >>I can confirm that the kernel "doesn't crash" with this applied, and >>that backtracing at least partially works. But this is not really >>sufficient to demontrate that the now code works better than the old >>code in corner cases (which is the point of the patch). >> >>Can you give details of what additional testing you have, or plan to >>do? > > We saw a data abort in unwinder for one of Samsung Project, during a > Samsung Automation test case. > After that I created the initial the patch, and the data abort has not been > seen till now. > > Is it possible for you to give an idea on what other kind of additional testing > do you have in mind. > > Regads > Anurag > -- Anurag Aggarwal