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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC007C43334 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 17:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238563AbiF0RE5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:04:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53918 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235533AbiF0RE4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:04:56 -0400 Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A8E13D3D; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.254.32] (unknown [47.189.24.195]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E07E920CD16D; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:04:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com E07E920CD16D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1656349495; bh=KQyldYi9aNugtS575gcjHBwv/1KYNMViHcWnCpi8oHw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=q1Fhl1wQAH2cWU/7X4h+HKM34hw+r+ApMkmt7T/tDx5VUBXtp6u6qCxB6l+EcsMiw duxTJqQ9Lct0KC54oiDQHhaHbjOhDF+03fYBB7I4aZXSk/8jCmbMHQGaL+w7WighNO vkMRWswyX3xyevmgDmkgVmfFtX4JZccfCFVCM6S0= Message-ID: <89cbbe1f-8f2e-0674-ceb3-1e018e5bf2a4@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:04:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks Content-Language: en-US To: Kalesh Singh Cc: Mark Rutland , Will Deacon , Mark Brown , Josh Poimboeuf , Ard Biesheuvel , nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com, sjitindarsingh@gmail.com, Catalin Marinas , James Morris , "moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)" , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Marc Zyngier References: <20220617210717.27126-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20220623173224.GB16966@willie-the-truck> <66545c21-cfcf-60eb-4acf-39be99520369@linux.microsoft.com> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: live-patching@vger.kernel.org On 6/27/22 11:32, Kalesh Singh wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 9:33 PM Madhavan T. Venkataraman > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/26/22 04:18, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:19:01AM -0500, 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" >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Sorry for the delay; I have been rather swamped recently and haven't had the >>> time to give this the time it needs. >>> >>> I'm happy with patches 1 and 2, and I've acked those in case Will wants to pick >>> them. >>> >>> Kalesh (cc'd) is working to share the unwinder code with hyp, and I think that >>> we need to take a step back and consider how we can make the design work >>> cleanly with that. I'd had a go at prototyping making the unwinder more data >>> driven, but I haven't come up with something satisfactory so far. >>> >>> It would be good if you could look at / comment on each others series. >>> >> >> I will review Kalesh's unwinder changes. > > Thanks Mark, I'll take a look. > > Madhavan, I'm in the process of preparing a new version. Let me rebase > on your first 2 patches and resend, so you can look at that version > instead. > Sure thing. Thanks. Madhavan