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 14:11:40 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, mark.rutland@arm.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: <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble>
References: <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503>
 <20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk>
 <a2a32666-c27e-3a0f-06b2-b7a2baa7e0f1@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210521174242.GD5825@sirena.org.uk>
 <26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk>
 <20210521184817.envdg232b2aeyprt@treble>
 <74d12457-7590-bca2-d1ce-5ff82d7ab0d8@linux.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <74d12457-7590-bca2-d1ce-5ff82d7ab0d8@linux.microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:59:16PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/21/21 1:48 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> >>> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in
> >>>> future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there.
> >>
> >>> So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false
> >>> for errors? Which one do you prefer?
> >>
> >>> Josh,
> >>
> >>> Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()?
> >>
> >> I think it's fine to leave it as it is.
> > 
> > Either way works for me, but if you remove those 'reliable = false'
> > statements for stack corruption then, IIRC, the caller would still have
> > some confusion between the end of stack error (-ENOENT) and the other
> > errors (-EINVAL).
> > 
> 
> I will leave it the way it is. That is, I will do reliable = false on errors
> like you suggested.
> 
> > So the caller would have to know that -ENOENT really means success.
> > Which, to me, seems kind of flaky.
> > 
> 
> Actually, that is why -ENOENT was introduced - to indicate successful
> stack trace termination. A return value of 0 is for continuing with
> the stack trace. A non-zero value is for terminating the stack trace.
> 
> So, either we return a positive value (say 1) to indicate successful
> termination. Or, we return -ENOENT to say no more stack frames left.
> I guess -ENOENT was chosen.

I see.  So it's a tri-state return value, and frame->reliable is
intended to be a private interface not checked by the callers.

That makes sense, and probably fine, it's just perhaps a bit nonstandard
compared to most Linux interfaces.

-- 
Josh