Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190405150658.237064784@linutronix.de> <20190405150930.967389183@linutronix.de>
 <CALCETrWF_YgQODJ=Rpm2MnhFxJXCfoo4H792hUQni0GS9on7og@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904080043390.1840@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CALCETrXyfEu5MHCDp+OiRdHcYQ1tMNhTMSxcAhWkOx_8r2rxsA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904080839480.1840@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904080839480.1840@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 09:18:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrX_Pyo-H8H2feZz1+hiz_E99ZqVBqb+xvZfZ+gvFGL5gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 28/29] x86/irq/64: Remap the IRQ stack with guard pages
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:46 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:44 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > Actually we have: save_stack_trace()
> > >
> >
> > Like I did here:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=WIP.x86/stackguards
>
> Kinda, but what that code wants is to skip any entry before 'caller'. So we
> either add something like save_stack_trace_from() which is trivial on x86
> because unwind_start() already has an argument to hand in the start of
> stack or we filter out the entries up to 'caller' in that code.
>
>

Whoops!

I could add a save_stack_trace_from() or I could add a "caller"
argument to struct stack_trace.  Any preference as to which looks
better?  The latter seems a little nicer to me.