On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 04:43:19PM +0200, Jens Remus wrote:
> @@ -26,12 +27,10 @@ get_user_word(unsigned long *word, unsigned long base,
> int off, unsigned int ws)
> return get_user(*word, addr);
> }
>
> -static int unwind_user_next_fp(struct unwind_user_state *state)
> +static int unwind_user_next_common(struct unwind_user_state *state,
> + const struct unwind_user_frame *frame,
> + struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
What is pt_regs for? AFAICT it isn't actually used in any of the
following patches.
> - const struct unwind_user_frame fp_frame = {
> - ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME(state->ws)
> - };
> - const struct unwind_user_frame *frame = &fp_frame;
> unsigned long cfa, fp, ra;
>
> if (frame->use_fp) {
> @@ -67,6 +66,26 @@ static int unwind_user_next_fp(struct unwind_user_state
> *state)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int unwind_user_next_sframe(struct unwind_user_state *state)
> +{
> + struct unwind_user_frame _frame, *frame;
> +
> + /* sframe expects the frame to be local storage */
> + frame = &_frame;
> + if (sframe_find(state->ip, frame))
> + return -ENOENT;
> + return unwind_user_next_common(state, frame, task_pt_regs(current));
> +}
Would it not be simpler to write:
static int unwind_user_next_sframe(struct unwind_user_state *state)
{
struct unwind_user_frame frame;
/* sframe expects the frame to be local storage */
if (sframe_find(state->ip, &frame))
return -ENOENT;
return unwind_user_next_common(state, &frame, task_pt_regs(current));
}
hmm?
> +static int unwind_user_next_fp(struct unwind_user_state *state)
> +{
> + const struct unwind_user_frame fp_frame = {
> + ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME(state->ws)
> + };
> +
> + return unwind_user_next_common(state, &fp_frame, task_pt_regs(current));
> +}
> +
> static int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state *state)
> {
> unsigned long iter_mask = state->available_types;
> @@ -80,6 +99,16 @@ static int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state
> *state)
>
> state->current_type = type;
> switch (type) {
> + case UNWIND_USER_TYPE_SFRAME:
> + switch (unwind_user_next_sframe(state)) {
> + case 0:
> + return 0;
> + case -ENOENT:
> + continue; /* Try next method. */
> + default:
> + state->done = true;
> + }
> + break;
Should it remove SFRAME from state->available_types at this point?
