[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: reliable stacktraces
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> This is more an RFC in the original sense: is this basically
> the correct approach? (as I had to tweak the API a bit).
> In particular the code does not detect interrupts and exception
> frames, and does not yet check whether the code address is valid.
> The latter check would also have to be omitted for the latest frame
> on other tasks' stacks. This would require some more tweaking.
> unwind_frame() now reports whether we had to stop normally or due to
> an error condition; walk_stackframe() will pass that info.
> __save_stack_trace() is used for a start to check the validity of a
> frame; maybe save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() will need its own callback.
> Any comments welcome.
> Signed-off-by: Torsten Duwe <>

Before we do this we'll need the same analysis we did for ppc64le to
figure out if objtool is needed.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-10 22:45    [W:0.101 / U:36.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site