From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-devel] [Patch v2 2/4] x86/stack: Adjust
 boundary conditions for printed stacks.
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:53:11 +0100
Message-ID: <5208E8C7.6090808@citrix.com>
References: <5208CBB402000078000EB1D2@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1376309700-18755-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<520902EF02000078000EB37E@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1V8sYp-0003IC-9r
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:53:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: <520902EF02000078000EB37E@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 12/08/13 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.08.13 at 14:15, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Get the bottom-of-stack, as useful for printing stack traces.  This is
>> + * similar position as is returned by get_cpu_info(), but works on arbitrary
>> + * stack pointer, rather than just the current.
>> + *
>> + * In the non-frame pointer case, the boundary is exactly at the cpu_info
>> + * structure, which prevents the stack trace walker from mis-interpreting
>> + * guest register as Xen return addresses.
>> + *
>> + * For the frame pointer case, the boundary is further adjusted by two words,
>> + * as the call out of assembly does not contain a traditional C stack with
>> + * frame pointers.
>> + */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
>> +#define get_printable_stack_bottom(sp)          \
>> +    ((sp & (~(STACK_SIZE-1))) +                 \
>> +     (STACK_SIZE - sizeof(struct cpu_info) - 2*sizeof(unsigned long)))
>> +#else
>> +#define get_printable_stack_bottom(sp)          \
>> +    ((sp & (~(STACK_SIZE-1))) + (STACK_SIZE - sizeof(struct cpu_info)))
>> +#endif
> Hmm, the delta being 2 slots makes no sense to me: The only
> difference ought to be the saved frame pointer, i.e. one slot.
> With what you propose here I'd suspect that the return address
> pointing into assembly code might be lost now with frame pointers.
>
> Jan
>

It was never available, and I cant find a way of getting at it without
special casing the frame-pointer code, or faking up a frame pointer in
the assembly.

~Andrew