[RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Implement stack trace reliability checks

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:43:48AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

> How would you prefer I handle this? Should I place all SYM_CODE functions that
> are actually safe for the unwinder in a separate section? I could just take
> some approach and solve this. But I would like to get your opinion and Mark
> Rutland's opinion so we are all on the same page.

That sounds reasonable to me, obviously we'd have to look at how
exactly the annotation ends up getting done and general bikeshed colour
discussions.  I'm not sure if we want a specific "safe for unwinder
section" or to split things up into sections per reason things are safe
for the unwinder (kind of like what you were proposing for flagging
things as a problem), that might end up being useful for other things at
some point.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20210416/dc1c82e1/attachment.sig>