[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/1] orc: mark it as reliable
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 11:23:15AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> We need a reliable stack unwinder for kernel live patching, but we do
> not want to enable frame pointers for performance reasons. So let ORC be
> a reliable stack unwinder on x86 as it performs nicely wrt reliability
> of traces.
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <>
> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <>
> Cc:
> ---
> I am sending this as an RFC. Do you still consider ORC to be not-enough
> reliable?

Off the top of my head, at least the following is missing:

- save_stack_trace_reliable() assumes that kernel mode pt_regs on the
stack make the stack trace unreliable. This is an FP-specific
assumption which no longer applies for ORC.

- The ORC unwinder needs to set unwind_state.error if it doesn't reach
all the way to the end (user pt_regs).


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-04 16:05    [W:0.043 / U:11.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site