On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:15 PM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] > > If the problem was only with userstacktrace, it will be reasonable to > > surround only the userstack unwinder. But the situation is similar to > > the previous "tracing vs CR2" case. As Peter taught me in > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > > there are some other codes likely to to user access. > > So I surround preemptirq events earlier. > > I disagree. The issue is with the attached callbacks that call > something (a stack unwinder) that can fault. > > This is called whenever irqs are disabled. I say we surround the > culprit (the stack unwinder or stack trace) and not punish the irq > enable/disable events.
I agree with everything Steve said. thanks, - Joel
