On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:55:08 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/jdk.hotspot.agent/linux/native/libsaproc/LinuxDebuggerLocal.cpp line 295:
>>
>>> 293: #ifdef __aarch64__
>>> 294: if (pac_enabled(ph)) {
>>> 295: printf("WARNING: PAC is enabled. Output might not be enough and/or
>>> incorrect.\n");
>>
>> I'm not sure what is meant by "Output might not be enough...". What output
>> are you referring to?
>
> For example, if the user run `jhsdb jstack --mixed`, call stacks might not be
> enough because SA cannot decode PAC.
Ok. Maybe then say something like "Stack traces might be incomplete".
>> src/jdk.hotspot.agent/linux/native/libsaproc/libproc_impl.h line 119:
>>
>>> 117: struct core_data* core; // data only used for core dumps,
>>> NULL for process
>>> 118: #ifdef __aarch64__
>>> 119: bool pac_enabled; // true if PAC (PACA) is enabled
>>
>> What is "PACA"? Also this might be a good place to indicate that PAC is
>> "Pointer Authentication Code"
>
> According to [Kernel
> document](https://docs.kernel.org/arch/arm64/pointer-authentication.html#basic-support),
> there are 2 kinds of PAC:
>
>> Presence of address authentication functionality is advertised via
>> HWCAP_PACA, and generic authentication functionality via HWCAP_PACG.
>
> Should we add `HWCAP_PACA` here? or remove `PACA`?
Ok. So we support HWCAP_PACA. I would just say that instead of just PACA. Maybe
the full comment could be.
`// true if the HWCAP_PACA variant of Pointer Authentication Code (PAC) is
enabled.`
Maybe it should be on its own line.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29731#discussion_r2866802234
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29731#discussion_r2866811855
