From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
ardb@kernel.org, nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com,
sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:27:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7bca44c-d562-8894-7de3-a6686e1052fa@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66545c21-cfcf-60eb-4acf-39be99520369@linux.microsoft.com>
On 6/24/22 00:19, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>
>
> On 6/23/22 12:32, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 04:07:11PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
>>>
>>> I have synced this patch series to v5.19-rc2.
>>> I have also removed the following patch.
>>>
>>> [PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
>>>
>>> as HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE depends on STACK_VALIDATION which is not present
>>> yet. This patch will be added in the future once Objtool is enhanced to
>>> provide stack validation in some form.
>>
>> Given that it's not at all obvious that we're going to end up using objtool
>> for arm64, does this patch series gain us anything in isolation?
>>
>
> BTW, I have synced my patchset to 5.19-rc2 and sent it as v15.
Sorry. What I wanted to say was that in v15 I have removed the patch titled:
arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
since objtool changes are not in place.
Apologies.
Madhavan
>
> So, to answer your question, patches 1 thru 3 in v15 are still useful even if we don't
> consider reliable stacktrace. These patches reorganize the unwinder code based on
> comments from both Mark Rutland and Mark Brown. Mark Brown has already OKed them.
> If Mark Rutland OKes them, we should upstream them.
>
> I can drop patches 4 thru 6. Actually, the objtool patch series that I have
> sent separately for supporting livepatch already addresses reliability. So, if that
> gets reviewed and accepted, we don't even need patches 4 thru 6.
>
> If you are OK with that, I can resend v16 with just patches 1 thru 3. Let me know.
>
> Madhavan
>
_______________________________________________
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:[~2022-06-24 5:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <ff68fb850d42e1adaa6a0a6c9c258acabb898b24>
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 1/6] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 2/6] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 3/6] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 5/6] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-06-17 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v15 6/6] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-06-17 20:50 ` [RFC PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 13:00 ` Will Deacon
2022-06-27 17:06 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH " madvenka
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH v15 1/6] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-06-26 7:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH v15 2/6] arm64: Copy the task argument to unwind_state madvenka
2022-06-26 7:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH v15 3/6] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-06-26 8:21 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27 4:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH v15 4/6] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-06-26 8:32 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27 5:01 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH v15 5/6] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-06-26 8:46 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27 5:06 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-17 21:07 ` [PATCH v15 6/6] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-06-26 8:57 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27 5:53 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-23 17:32 ` [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Will Deacon
2022-06-24 5:19 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-24 5:27 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2022-06-26 9:18 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-27 4:33 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 16:32 ` Kalesh Singh
2022-06-27 17:04 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 4:48 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-27 9:42 ` Will Deacon
2022-06-24 11:42 ` Mark Brown
2022-06-24 22:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
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=b7bca44c-d562-8894-7de3-a6686e1052fa@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
--cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).