[PATCH v13 06/11] arm64: Use stack_trace_consume_fn and rename args to unwind()

[Madhavan T. Venkataraman]

On 3/10/22 02:33, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:00:35PM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>>
>>> It is just that patch 11 that defines "select
>>> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE" did not receive any comments from you
>>> (unless I missed a comment that came from you. That is entirely
>>> possible. If I missed it, my bad). Since you suggested that change, I
>>> just wanted to make sure that that patch looks OK to you.
>>
>> I think that's more a question for the livepatch people to be honest -
>> it's not entirely a technical one, there's a bunch of confidence level
>> stuff going on.  For example there was some suggestion that people might
>> insist on having objtool support, though there's also substantial
>> pushback on making objtool a requirement for anything from other
>> quarters.  I was hoping that posting that patch would provoke some
>> discussion about what exactly is needed but that's not happened thus
>> far.
> 
> I think everyone will be happy with HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE on arm64 as 
> long as there is a guarantee that stack traces are really reliable. My 
> understanding is that there is still some work to be done on arm64 arch 
> side (but I may have misunderstood what Mark R. said elsewhere). And yes, 
> then there is a question of objtool. It is one option but not the only 
> one. There have been proposals of implementing guarantees on a compiler 
> side and leaving objtool for x86_64 only (albeit objtool may bring more 
> features to the table... ORC, arch features checking).
> 
> Madhavan also mentioned that he enhanced objtool and he planned to submit 
> it eventually 
> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/1a0e19db-a7f8-4c8e-0163-398fcd364d54@linux.microsoft.com/T/#u), 
> so maybe arm64 maintainers could decide on a future direction based on 
> that?
> 

Yes. I am working on that right now. Hope to send it out soon.

Madhavan