The ppc64le implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() is
exported, so do the same with x86.
Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 5c2d71a1dc06..ad9b38dabf6a 100644
We could do the inverse and remove the symbol export from
arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c, but I figured the other
save_stack_trace_tsk variants are already exported for both
arches, so add this one, too. -- JL
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ int save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk,
return ret;
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable);
#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE */
/* Userspace stacktrace - based on kernel/trace/trace_sysprof.c */
--
2.20.1
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> The ppc64le implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() is
> exported, so do the same with x86.
And what's the in tree module user of this? I can't find one and just
because PPC has an export with no user is not a convincing argument to add
another one. The proper solution is to remove the unused PPC export.
Thanks,
tglx
On 2/27/19 4:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>
>> The ppc64le implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() is
>> exported, so do the same with x86.
>
> And what's the in tree module user of this? I can't find one and just
> because PPC has an export with no user is not a convincing argument to add
> another one. The proper solution is to remove the unused PPC export.
>
Good point.
For that matter, I do see in-tree modules making use of
save_stack_trace, but who is calling save_stack_trace_tsk (exported by
most arches) and save_stack_trace_regs (exported by openrisc, powerpc,
s390)?
-- Joe
On 2/27/19 5:25 PM, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 2/27/19 4:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> The ppc64le implementation of save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() is
>>> exported, so do the same with x86.
>>
>> And what's the in tree module user of this? I can't find one and just
>> because PPC has an export with no user is not a convincing argument to add
>> another one. The proper solution is to remove the unused PPC export.
>>
>
> Good point.
>
> For that matter, I do see in-tree modules making use of
> save_stack_trace, but who is calling save_stack_trace_tsk (exported by
> most arches) and save_stack_trace_regs (exported by openrisc, powerpc,
> s390)?
Well, at least for save_stack_trace_tsk there is the out-of-tree kpatch
core module[1]. (Kpatch drops that call if the kernel provides
livepatch functionality.)
[1] https://github.com/dynup/kpatch/blob/master/kmod/core/core.c#L275
-- Joe