From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49C4642A9D; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.15 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752167351; cv=none; b=JB+fOlXWzCA8I51/3qES+lJT9tZPrElVns1Y9XI1a18TxJl4MHyBGs0pWFKt5ImLTav/AC1Hr07ebOJAdoae9F/LwFQCfK7HD8asA3kJTUCNgjP+8Vx+c/OOMHkXEMGpQWt4IgnMBQZO79e7HGoJLsAZqxoqc8imhLXba8B3O4w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752167351; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fnSrmvINOTQCBaTJNNf92+lWkybHVGjaYPdxfM+hCjc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qJ0auJqoPDW7jv2k8sPVwI6qYNmeBxX3/enCi49tnZEkO12vVPtEHh8ada3BaKeRoWXK0uw20u4koUNJwNGCsBgg5g3o3bfxIBXdEzSg4wUmjlgtQfComTlLi2T9Ny0i0b5lWyXVADE4WVudD7koHZYkW4f/SWLqzB7rxuX+p9Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org Received: from omf06.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A4B1A0374; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:09:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C0FA92000F; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:08:59 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jens Remus Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Josh Poimboeuf , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Thomas Gleixner , Andrii Nakryiko , Indu Bhagat , "Jose E. Marchesi" , Beau Belgrave , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , Florian Weimer , Sam James , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 02/14] unwind_user: Add frame pointer support Message-ID: <20250710130859.41f3d5d0@batman.local.home> In-Reply-To: <155f22cb-b986-4d22-a853-6de49a1c2e03@linux.ibm.com> References: <20250708012239.268642741@kernel.org> <20250708012357.982692711@kernel.org> <20250710112147.41585f6a@batman.local.home> <155f22cb-b986-4d22-a853-6de49a1c2e03@linux.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: depqztwu8wiqfietk8fu8n7763s51ws5 X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C0FA92000F X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1+01n35r8VXAY4UbJG9hSOyN+nC70zKvas= X-HE-Tag: 1752167340-156481 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1/tlcw3ZQtrsCXf5B3curUZeKn1VNU/to0VOeOauQxGd7Ve6hk7iq3DF8ewqmO7sODtFQ5ZuXg6O4v3iz/2FcMy2S94Q4hRg5Gtcn4ls6WHO6ovHxSi015cjB18I0oDgln5oKHSm4zpRu5Jiiusb6hlzrWJFcvnUna7+zW4uqbulKgPd9VBCbx0V/H/57o8NMWGQYCt7glbYmmvLSL6HNDO8jD5HmRFbP5LKDXYfN2y2LSVe9GPv60jJ7AZxAma5JlegirY/AVxAsHZCIJld95RxpTxpH9C2jG9opLBFqbRftwzaHzzQd2YI5VgRVOuh3c4a+ahCEkV8iTM+vQd6rEY On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:41:36 +0200 Jens Remus wrote: > cfa + frame->ra_off could be aligned by chance. So could > cfa + frame->fp_off be as well of course. > > On s390 the CFA must be aligned (as the SP must be aligned) and the > FP and RA offsets from CFA must be aligned, as pointer / 64-bit integers > (such as 64-bit register values) must be aligned as well. > > So the CFA (and/or offset), FP offset, and RA offset could be validated > individually. Not sure if that would be over engineering though. I wonder if we should just validate that cfa is aligned? Would that work? I would think that ra_off and fp_off should be aligned as well and if cfa is aligned then it would still be aligned when adding those offsets. -- Steve