On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:58 PM Hong YANG3 杨红 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lianbo > > Please help to review the new patch v7 with only one change for removing the > redundant code. >
Thank you for the update, Hong. Applied with the patch log modifications. https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/commit/995db8ab88916b6397676b67be98c0a4f82cca49 > Patch is patch, what's the better way attach it into an email? Copy & paste > would not applicable for a large patch file. > I usually use the command "git send-email --to xxx xxx" to post a patch with plain text mode. > I have no vmcore file, but there is a kernel module which would help to > trigger an overflow stack panic for testing, please download the module form > link [1] and compile it as a module to load it into your test box, please > read the README.txt and the source code for more details. > > [1] > https://github.com/yangh/crash/tree/pso-kernel-module/kernel-modules/panic-stack-overflow > Thank you for sharing this. I have reproduced it with your demo. Thanks. Lianbo > Best regards > Hong > ________________________________ > From: Hong YANG3 杨红 <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 11:40 > To: lijiang <[email protected]>; Discussion list for crash utility usage, > maintenance and development <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: arm64: Support overflow stack panic > > Hi Lianbo > > I'm using outlook to send mail to this list, I'll try to find a better way to > send out patch and mails more friendly for all reader, . > > I'll send out a demo kernel module which can trigger an overflow panic for > testing, and also the patch will be updated as your comment in previous mail. > > Thanks for your quickly reply. > > Best regards > Hong > ________________________________ > From: lijiang <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 10:58 > To: Hong YANG3 杨红 <[email protected]>; Discussion list for crash utility > usage, maintenance and development <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: arm64: Support overflow stack panic > > 注意：此封邮件来自于公司外部，请注意信息安全！ > Attention: This email comes from outside of the company, please pay attention > to the information security! > Hi, Hong > > Thank you for the patch. I added the comments below, other changes look good > to me. > > @@ -1978,7 +2028,10 @@ arm64_in_exception_text(ulong ptr) > if ((ptr >= ms->__exception_text_start) && > (ptr < ms->__exception_text_end)) > return TRUE; > - } else if ((name = closest_symbol(ptr))) { /* Linux 5.5 and later */ > + } > + > + name = closest_symbol(ptr); > + if (name != NULL) { /* Linux 5.5 and later */ > > The above changes are irrelevant to your patch itself. But anyway this looks > more readable to me. > > for (func = &arm64_exception_functions[0]; *func; func++) { > if (STREQ(name, *func)) > return TRUE; > @@ -2255,12 +2308,14 @@ arm64_unwind_frame(struct bt_info *bt, struct > arm64_stackframe *frame) > if (!(machdep->flags & IRQ_STACKS)) > return TRUE; > > - if (!(machdep->flags & IRQ_STACKS)) > + if (!(machdep->flags & OVERFLOW_STACKS)) > return TRUE; > > Originally, it had two same(repeated) statements, one of which must be > redundant. This time, can it be changed to a statement as below? > > if (!(machdep->flags & (IRQ_STACKS | OVERFLOW_STACKS))) > return TRUE; > > BTW: this patch was sent as an attachment, which is inconvenient for other > reviewers to add comments. > > In addition, I have a request: can you share the vmcore with me if it > doesn't have confidential data? I'm collecting the specific vmcore > for the test, at least I haven't reproduced it. > > Thanks. > Lianbo -- Crash-utility mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
