Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:36:39 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     "Wangshaobo (bobo)" <bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com>
Cc:     huawei.libin@huawei.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com,
        cj.chengjian@huawei.com, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        mbenes@suse.cz, devel@etsukata.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        esyr@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Question: livepatch failed for new fork() task stack unreliable
Message-ID: <20200630213639.kijctnz4y3zjbkhx@treble>
References: <20200601180538.o5agg5trbdssqken@treble>
 <a5e0f476-02b5-cc44-8d4e-d33ff2138143@huawei.com>
 <20200602131450.oydrydelpdaval4h@treble>
 <1353648b-f3f7-5b8d-f0bb-28bdb1a66f0f@huawei.com>
 <20200603153358.2ezz2pgxxxld7mj7@treble>
 <2225bc83-95f2-bf3d-7651-fdd10a3ddd00@huawei.com>
 <20200604024051.6ovbr6tbrowwg6jr@treble>
 <c3a81224-bea1-116b-7528-f03f90be5264@huawei.com>
 <20200605015142.w65uu5wxfmrun2ro@treble>
 <e914bcd6-009c-0a89-bc59-b9a87a9c552d@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e914bcd6-009c-0a89-bc59-b9a87a9c552d@huawei.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:04:12PM +0800, Wangshaobo (bobo) wrote:
> 
> 在 2020/6/5 9:51, Josh Poimboeuf 写道:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 09:26:42AM +0800, Wangshaobo (bobo) wrote:
> > > > > So, I want to ask is there any side effects if i modify like this ? this
> > > > > modification is based on
> > > > > 
> > > > > your fix. It looks like ok with proper test.
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > > > index e9cc182aa97e..ecce5051e8fd 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > > > @@ -620,6 +620,7 @@ void __unwind_start(struct unwind_state *state, struct
> > > > > task_struct *task,
> > > > >                   state->sp = task->thread.sp;
> > > > >                   state->bp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(frame->bp);
> > > > >                   state->ip = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(frame->ret_addr);
> > > > > +              state->signal = ((void *)state->ip == ret_from_fork);
> > > > >           }
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > > > index 7f969b2d240f..d7396431261a 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > > > @@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
> > > > >            state->sp = sp;
> > > > >            state->regs = NULL;
> > > > >            state->prev_regs = NULL;
> > > > > -        state->signal = ((void *)state->ip == ret_from_fork);
> > > > > +        state->signal = false;
> > > > >            break;
> > > > Yes that's correct.
> > > Hi, josh
> > > 
> > > Could i ask when are you free to send the patch, all the tests are passed
> > > by.
> > I want to run some regression tests, so it will probably be next week.

Sorry, I was away for a bit and I didn't get a chance to send the patch.
I should hopefully have it ready soon.

-- 
Josh