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:   Fri, 21 May 2021 17:11:17 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Cc:     mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
        jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        jmorris@namei.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
 checks in the unwinder
Message-ID: <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk>
References: <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503>
 <20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:00:17PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

> Other reliability checks will be added in the future.

...

> +	frame->reliable = true;
> +

All these checks are good checks but as you say there's more stuff that
we need to add (like your patch 2 here) so I'm slightly nervous about
actually setting the reliable flag here without even a comment.  Equally
well there's no actual use of this until arch_stack_walk_reliable() gets
implemented so it's not like it's causing any problems and it gives us
the structure to start building up the rest of the checks.

The other thing I guess is the question of if we want to bother flagging
frames as unrelaible when we return an error; I don't see an issue with
it and it may turn out to make it easier to do something in the future
so I'm fine with that.

--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmCn26QACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9BRjwf+NUkllMR4DUBzihQYZz8gFCBdrphJycb1capE54XA922TiNiSHdNs6Un2
og9xrHSmjkris4pNB4/EoZ8drNtDgp3x8Rwgg7RbRhA0xujYmOoWGJuhdEuUEjID
jlkGNpt3oRJgBtEl3evUCSmXW0GK5a3emGmYA1yzUtuCFNIU4IfwO6r0d9R4Vc0U
koUUak44PssXvqETo+iCX8BFh1dCVB8hTrPQJRpTjxHUcljYUxRK5/7aT1pj2L/R
viAnHaZVX5h7RHy4oc/kKUG5jEY4WWdZembkRUhVjbYy+tNc5SLGNi9Gd3G8BxJw
YGsb0HGPBSkXuoM3WVDdcHpNRe3/Hw==
=FYp0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm--