On Thu 2016-04-07 09:46:55, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Well, I wonder if we should be more suspicious and make > > sure that only the regular process stack is used. > > Notice the save_stack_stack_reliable() function, which is called by > dump_trace() when the task is running on an interrupt or exception > stack. It returns -EINVAL, so the stack gets marked unreliable. Does > that address your concern, or did you mean something else?
I see. It does what I wanted. Thanks, Petr
