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 14:16:08 -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: <20210521191608.f24sldzhpg3hyq32@treble>
References: <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>
 <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210521191140.4aezpvm2kruztufi@treble>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:11:45PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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.

Or is frame->reliable supposed to be checked after all?  Looking at the
code again, I'm not sure.

Either way it would be good to document the interface more clearly in a
comment above the function.

-- 
Josh