From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:36:01 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c16df525-d675-db88-71cf-0d22c405d77c@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <de35a18a-5dbe-193a-49c1-881541877579@linux.microsoft.com>
Hi Mark,
Could you please answer the two questions below? You are the expert.
Help me understand the exact problems. Even if the proposal is not
considered, I want to understand what is wrong with it.
On 2/3/21 1:03 PM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>
>
> On 2/3/21 10:53 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> The epilog you propose is also unsound in the face of asynchronous
>> exceptions, so I suspect you haven't thought as hard about this as you
>> need to.
>>
>
Can you elaborate? I understand that an exception can happen right in the
middle of the prolog or epilog. What extra problem is caused by the changed
prolog and epilog?
>
>
>> Even if the compiler uses a different prologue/epilogue sequence, we
>> still need to verify that the rest of the function does nothing to
>> undermine that.
>>
The epilog corrects the frame pointer even if it is modified by the
function. It also restores the stack pointer correctly even if the
function does not.
What else can go wrong?
Thanks in advance for the info.
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:[~2021-02-05 2:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-12 17:26 [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace Mark Brown
2020-10-12 17:26 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] arm64: remove EL0 exception frame record Mark Brown
2020-10-12 17:26 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] arm64: stacktrace: Report when we reach the end of the stack Mark Brown
2020-10-13 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-12 17:26 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] arm64: stacktrace: Implement reliable stacktrace Mark Brown
2020-10-13 10:42 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-13 11:42 ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-13 16:12 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-15 13:33 ` Miroslav Benes
2020-10-15 15:57 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-16 10:13 ` Miroslav Benes
2020-10-16 12:30 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-15 13:39 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: Implement reliable stack trace Miroslav Benes
2020-10-15 14:16 ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-15 15:49 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-15 21:29 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-16 11:14 ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-20 10:03 ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-20 15:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-16 12:15 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-19 23:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-10-20 15:39 ` Mark Brown
2020-10-20 16:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-27 14:02 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-27 16:40 ` Mark Rutland
2021-01-27 17:11 ` Mark Brown
2021-01-27 17:24 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-27 19:54 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-28 14:22 ` Mark Brown
2021-01-28 15:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-29 21:39 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 3:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 14:39 ` Mark Brown
2021-01-30 4:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 15:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 15:46 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 16:02 ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-01 16:22 ` Mark Brown
2021-02-01 21:40 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 21:38 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-01 23:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-02 2:29 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-02 3:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-02 10:05 ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-02 13:33 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-02 13:35 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-02 23:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-03 16:53 ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-03 19:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-05 2:36 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2021-02-01 21:59 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-02-02 13:36 ` Mark Brown
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=c16df525-d675-db88-71cf-0d22c405d77c@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--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).