Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On 2/12/2016 9:38 AM, Shi, Yang wrote: On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: Hi! On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, otherwise is is

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On 2/12/2016 9:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:38:51AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:38:51AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: > >On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: > >>Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on > >>the > >>irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: Hi! On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, otherwise is is just zeroed off. Given it was picked up

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

Hi! On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: > Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on > the > irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, > otherwise is is just zeroed off. Given it was picked up with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT: Fixes:

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

Hi! On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: > Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on > the > irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, > otherwise is is just zeroed off. Given it was picked up with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT: Fixes:

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: Hi! On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, otherwise is is just zeroed off. Given it was picked up

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On 2/12/2016 9:38 AM, Shi, Yang wrote: On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: Hi! On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, otherwise is is

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:38:51AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: > >On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: > >>Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on > >>the > >>irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and

Re: [PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

On 2/12/2016 9:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:38:51AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: On 2/12/2016 5:47 AM, James Morse wrote: On 11/02/16 21:53, Yang Shi wrote: Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when

[PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, otherwise is is just zeroed off. Signed-off-by: Yang Shi --- arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 13 ++--- arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c

[PATCH] arm64: make irq_stack_ptr more robust

Switching between stacks is only valid if we are tracing ourselves while on the irq_stack, so it is only valid when in current and non-preemptible context, otherwise is is just zeroed off. Signed-off-by: Yang Shi --- arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 13 ++---