On 11/6/2015 8:25 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:21:09PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:50:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
FRAME_POINTER is defined in lib/Kconfig.debug, it is unnecessary to redefine
it in arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug.
It might be worth noting that this adds a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL
for building with frame pointers. I'm ok with that (it appears to be
enabled in defconfig and follows the vast majority of other archs) but
it is a change in behaviour.
With that:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
The code in arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c assumes we have frame
pointers regardless of FRAME_POINTER. Depending on what the compiler
decides to use x29 for, we could get some weird fake unwinding and/or
dodgy memory accesses.
I think we should first audit the uses of frame pointers to ensure that
they are guarded for !FRAME_POINTER.
Or we just select FRAME_POINTER in the ARM64 Kconfig entry.
Yang, did you see any benefit disabling frame pointers, or was this patch
purely based on you spotting a duplicate Kconfig entry?
It just spots a duplicate Kconfig entry.
FRAME_POINTER is defined in both lib/Kconfig.debug and
arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug.
The lib/Kconfig.debug one looks like:
config FRAME_POINTER
bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers"
depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && \
(CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || \
AVR32 || SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300 || METAG) || \
ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
default y if (DEBUG_INFO && UML) || ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
help
If you say Y here the resulting kernel image will be slightly
larger and slower, but it gives very useful debugging information
in case of kernel bugs. (precise oopses/stacktraces/warnings)
The common one just depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS.
ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS is selected by ARM64 kconfig entry.
To answer Catalin's question about:
However, the patch would allow one to
disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc
though).
No, it doesn't. Actually, FRAME_POINTER could be disabled regardless of
the patch.
Thanks,
Yang
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
