From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E958FCD4F2B for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=susede1 header.b=tPBubHru; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4RsQbG3tVMz3fdq for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 18:36:10 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=susede1 header.b=tPBubHru; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.com (client-ip=195.135.220.29; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pmladek@suse.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4RsQ082kB0z3gVj for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 18:09:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E1C1F38A; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:09:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1695370149; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0gLx5up2W0A7onZ8plsSQicHSESF10QpvNgWlLnvzwE=; b=tPBubHruDJanyHQ9yo0YvG8PNFgbYsJmVz/bV7ZQTXDr0Nsdu+vzjpGVXWn67ioWfCV4y7 3NBUSrZRwrtPDV+mFyYO5y4B2c6WITyt2U7QlIdzqLPQzYpqqAdtpASIw0xvqusBvDmfZf fiTjQxxX+7YloY6n2zlTZ2YN1OM66dg= Received: from suse.cz (pmladek.udp.ovpn2.prg.suse.de [10.100.201.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E652D2C142; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:09:07 +0200 From: Petr Mladek To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/stacktrace: Fix arch_stack_walk_reliable() Message-ID: References: <20230921232441.1181843-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230921232441.1181843-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, joe.lawrence@redhat.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, npiggin@gmail.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Fri 2023-09-22 09:24:41, Michael Ellerman wrote: > The changes to copy_thread() made in commit eed7c420aac7 ("powerpc: > copy_thread differentiate kthreads and user mode threads") inadvertently > broke arch_stack_walk_reliable() because it has knowledge of the stack > layout. > > Fix it by changing the condition to match the new logic in > copy_thread(). The changes make the comments about the stack layout > incorrect, rather than rephrasing them just refer the reader to > copy_thread(). > > Also the comment about the stack backchain is no longer true, since > commit edbd0387f324 ("powerpc: copy_thread add a back chain to the > switch stack frame"), so remove that as well. > > Reported-by: Joe Lawrence > Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman > Fixes: eed7c420aac7 ("powerpc: copy_thread differentiate kthreads and user mode threads") The change makes sense to me. Well, I could not test it easily. Anyway, feel free to use: Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek Best Regards, Petr