On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 05:39:34PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:07:16P
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:07:16PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> >> but, more importantly, the OOPS unwind
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:07:16PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> but, more importantly, the OOPS unwinder will just bail without this
> >> >> patch. With the patch
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:07:16PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> but, more importantly, the OOPS unwinder will just bail without this
>> >> patch. With the patch, we get a valid unwind, except that everything
>> >> has a ? in front.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:07:16PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> but, more importantly, the OOPS unwinder will just bail without this
> >> patch. With the patch, we get a valid unwind, except that everything
> >> has a ? in front.
> >
> > Hm. I can't even fathom how that's possible. Are yo
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:46:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 09:07:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> +bool in_SYSENTER_stack(unsigned long *s
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:46:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 09:07:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> +bool in_SYSENTER_stack(unsigned long *stack, struct stack_info *info)
> >
> > Can you make it lowerc
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 09:07:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> +bool in_SYSENTER_stack(unsigned long *stack, struct stack_info *info)
>
> Can you make it lowercase for consistency with the other in_*_stack()
> functions? For example,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 09:07:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> +bool in_SYSENTER_stack(unsigned long *stack, struct stack_info *info)
Can you make it lowercase for consistency with the other in_*_stack()
functions? For example, in_irq_stack() is all lowercase even though
"IRQ" is normally wri
get_stack_info() doesn't currently know about the SYSENTER stack, so
unwinding will fail if we entered the kernel on the SYSENTER stack
and haven't fully switched off. Teach get_stack_info() about the
SYSENTER stack.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
---
arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h | 3 +++
10 matches
Mail list logo