Re: [PATCH 05/19] x86/dumpstack: fix function graph tracing stack dump reliability issues

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 10:59:03 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:55:21PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Here's my patch that should be applied on top.
> > 
> > Maybe add a Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> along
> > with your SOB. But you should remain Author.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -123,13 +124,16 @@ print_context_stack_bp(struct task_struc
> >  
> >  	while (valid_stack_ptr(task, ret_addr, sizeof(*ret_addr), end)) {
> >  		unsigned long addr = *ret_addr;
> > +		unsigned long real_addr;
> >  
> >  		if (!__kernel_text_address(addr))
> >  			break;
> >  
> > -		addr = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(task, graph, addr);
> > -		if (ops->address(data, addr, 1))
> > +		real_addr = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(task, graph, addr);
> > +		if (ops->address(data, real_addr, 1))
> >  			break;
> > +		if (real_addr != addr)
> > +			ops->address(data, addr, 0);
> >  		frame = frame->next_frame;
> >  		ret_addr = &frame->return_address;
> >  	}  
> 
> Actually this hunk isn't needed because all users of
> print_context_stack_bp() only care about "reliable" addresses.  With
> frame pointers enabled, the only place "unreliable" addresses are used
> is in show_trace_log_lvl() -- and it uses the print_context_stack()
> callback.
> 
> I rely on that fact in the new frame pointer unwind code: it only
> reports reliable addresses.
> 

Can you make this a separate patch then. Before this one, and explain
why it isn't needed in the change log. I rather have the current patch
not make such a change in logic.

-- Steve