On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:39 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:58:52PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On a closer look, I think we also need some logic in unwind_find_stack()
> > so that we can see when the unwinder hits the exception boundary. For
> > this reason, we may still
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:38 AM Weinan Liu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:39 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:58:52PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > > On a closer look, I think we also need some logic in unwind_find_stack()
> > > so that we can see when the unwinder
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:58:52PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On a closer look, I think we also need some logic in unwind_find_stack()
> so that we can see when the unwinder hits the exception boundary. For
> this reason, we may still need unwind_state.unreliable. I will look into
> fixing this and s
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 6:03 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 4:00 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > - even in the -ENOENT case the unreliable bit has already been set
> > > right before the call to kunwind_next_
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 4:00 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > - even in the -ENOENT case the unreliable bit has already been set
> > right before the call to kunwind_next_frame_record_meta().
>
> For this one, do you mean we set state-
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 4:00 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 01:14:40PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > See for example all the error conditions in the x86 version of
> > > arch_stack_walk_reliable() and in arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c.
> >
> > I guess I missed this part:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 01:14:40PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> >
> > See for example all the error conditions in the x86 version of
> > arch_stack_walk_reliable() and in arch/x86/kernel/unwind_frame.c.
>
> I guess I missed this part:
>
> diff --git i/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c w/arch/arm64/kerne
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the review!
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:45 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:27:41PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > With proper exception boundary detection, it is possible to implment
> > arch_stack_walk_reliable without sframe.
> >
> > Note that, arch_stack
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:27:41PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> With proper exception boundary detection, it is possible to implment
> arch_stack_walk_reliable without sframe.
>
> Note that, arch_stack_walk_reliable does not guarantee getting reliable
> stack in all scenarios. Instead, it can reliably
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:12 AM Breno Leitao wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:27:41PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > With proper exception boundary detection, it is possible to implment
> > arch_stack_walk_reliable without sframe.
> >
> > Note that, arch_stack_walk_reliable does not guarantee ge
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:27:41PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> With proper exception boundary detection, it is possible to implment
> arch_stack_walk_reliable without sframe.
>
> Note that, arch_stack_walk_reliable does not guarantee getting reliable
> stack in all scenarios. Instead, it can reliably
With proper exception boundary detection, it is possible to implment
arch_stack_walk_reliable without sframe.
Note that, arch_stack_walk_reliable does not guarantee getting reliable
stack in all scenarios. Instead, it can reliably detect when the stack
trace is not reliable, which is enough to pro
12 matches
Mail list logo
