[PATCH v15 0/6] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks

[Will Deacon]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 11:48:36PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/26/22 04:18, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:19:01AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/23/22 12:32, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 04:07:11PM -0500, madvenka at linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> >>>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka at linux.microsoft.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have synced this patch series to v5.19-rc2.
> >>>> I have also removed the following patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> 	[PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE
> >>>>
> >>>> as HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE depends on STACK_VALIDATION which is not present
> >>>> yet. This patch will be added in the future once Objtool is enhanced to
> >>>> provide stack validation in some form.
> >>>
> >>> Given that it's not at all obvious that we're going to end up using objtool
> >>> for arm64, does this patch series gain us anything in isolation?
> >>>
> >>
> >> BTW, I have synced my patchset to 5.19-rc2 and sent it as v15.
> >>
> >> So, to answer your question, patches 1 thru 3 in v15 are still useful even if we don't
> >> consider reliable stacktrace. These patches reorganize the unwinder code based on
> >> comments from both Mark Rutland and Mark Brown. Mark Brown has already OKed them.
> >> If Mark Rutland OKes them, we should upstream them.
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay; I have been rather swamped recently and haven't had the
> > time to give this the time it needs.
> > 
> > I'm happy with patches 1 and 2, and I've acked those in case Will wants to pick
> > them.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Will,
> 
> Are you fine with picking up patches 1 and 2?
> 
> For the other patches, I have responded separately.

Sure thing, I'll do that today. Thanks for persevering with this.

Will