From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ppc64le save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable (Was: HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:54:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180309165412.78646b45@blackhole.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180309084333.23287074@gmail.com>
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:43:33 +1100
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:09:24 +0100
> Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> wrote:
> > +save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > + struct stack_trace *trace)
>
> Just double checking this is called under the task_rq_lock, so its
> safe to call task_stack_page() as opposed to try_get_task_stack()
Yes. IIRC a comment at the call site mentioned it.
[...]
> > + if (sp < stack_page + sizeof(struct thread_struct)
> > + || sp > stack_page + THREAD_SIZE -
> > STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD)
> > + return 1;
>
> Some of this is already present in validate_sp(), it also validates
> irq stacks, should we just reuse that?
This goes a bit along one of Josh's points; I'll answer there, OK?
[...]
> Looks good to me otherwise.
>
> Acked-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Thanks.
Torsten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-09 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20171004152516.25803-1-kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20171005124313.GA25100@lst.de>
[not found] ` <9f388c9a-8d74-865a-b113-f77322918b39@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20171017144733.GB2136@lst.de>
[not found] ` <95e6f942-88b7-0208-0eb0-2f5462aec410@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20171020120739.GA20306@lst.de>
[not found] ` <1508547548.5662.2.camel@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <39bb7180-1adf-4df6-c9ba-c6f92754767f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2017-12-12 11:39 ` [PATCH] On ppc64le we HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Torsten Duwe
2017-12-12 12:12 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-12-12 13:02 ` Torsten Duwe
2018-02-27 16:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] ppc64le save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable (Was: HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE) Torsten Duwe
2018-03-08 21:43 ` Balbir Singh
2018-03-09 15:54 ` Torsten Duwe [this message]
2017-12-12 14:05 ` [PATCH] On ppc64le we HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-15 9:40 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-18 2:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-18 3:39 ` Balbir Singh
2017-12-18 4:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-18 5:33 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-18 18:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-19 2:46 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-19 11:28 ` Torsten Duwe
2017-12-19 21:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-12-21 12:10 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-12-23 4:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
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=20180309165412.78646b45@blackhole.lan \
--to=duwe@lst.de \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
/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