Re: [RFC PATCH v2 14/15] unwind_user/backchain: Introduce back chain user space unwinding

[Jens Remus <jremus@linux.ibm.com>]

Hello Josh,

thank you for your feedback!

On 12/7/2025 4:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 06:14:45PM +0100, Jens Remus wrote:
>> @@ -159,6 +165,10 @@ static int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state *state)
>>  			if (!unwind_user_next_fp(state))
>>  				return 0;
>>  			continue;
>> +		case UNWIND_USER_TYPE_BACKCHAIN:
>> +			if (!unwind_user_next_backchain(state))
>> +				return 0;
>> +			continue;		/* Try next method. */
>>  		default:
>>  			WARN_ONCE(1, "Undefined unwind bit %d", bit);
>>  			break;
>> @@ -187,6 +197,8 @@ static int unwind_user_start(struct unwind_user_state *state)
>>  		state->available_types |= UNWIND_USER_TYPE_SFRAME;
>>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP))
>>  		state->available_types |= UNWIND_USER_TYPE_FP;
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_BACKCHAIN))
>> +		state->available_types |= UNWIND_USER_TYPE_BACKCHAIN;
> 
> Any reason not to just use the existing CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP hook
> here rather than create the new BACKCHAIN one?

At first I thought this would not be a good idea, as my unwind user
backchain implementation relies on being standalone without using
unwind_user_next_common().  Mainly because s390 back chain unwinding
does not have fixed CFA, FP, and RA offsets/locations.  But then I gave
it a try and it does not look that bad actually.

I'll send a RFC v3 soon.

Regards,
Jens
-- 
Jens Remus
Linux on Z Development (D3303)
+49-7031-16-1128 Office
jremus@de.ibm.com

IBM

IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Wolfgang Wendt; Geschäftsführung: David Faller; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
IBM Data Privacy Statement: https://www.ibm.com/privacy/