On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> In the following commit:
>
> 0100301bfdf5 ("sched/x86: Rewrite the switch_to() code")
>
> ... the layout of the 'inactive_task_frame' struct was designed to have
> a frame pointer header embedded in it, so that the unwinder could use
> the 'bp' and 'ret_addr' fields to report __schedule() on the stack (or
> ret_from_fork() for newly forked tasks which haven't actually run yet).
>
> Finish the job by changing get_frame_pointer() to return a pointer to
> inactive_task_frame's 'bp' field rather than 'bp' itself. This allows
> the unwinder to start one frame higher on the stack, so that it properly
> reports __schedule().
>
> Reported-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz>
You can also add my
Tested-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz>
One ignorant question below.
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h | 5 +----
> arch/x86/include/asm/switch_to.h | 10 +++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> index 20ce3db..2e41c50 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> @@ -52,16 +52,13 @@ static inline bool on_stack(struct stack_info *info, void
> *addr, size_t len)
> static inline unsigned long *
> get_frame_pointer(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> - struct inactive_task_frame *frame;
> -
> if (regs)
> return (unsigned long *)regs->bp;
>
> if (task == current)
> return __builtin_frame_address(0);
>
> - frame = (struct inactive_task_frame *)task->thread.sp;
> - return (unsigned long *)READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(frame->bp);
> + return &((struct inactive_task_frame *)task->thread.sp)->bp;
You effectively remove one of the changes from the previous patch -
READ_ONCE_NOCHECK. Is it intentional?
Regards,
Miroslav
