Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Implement arch_stack_walk_reliable
From: Song Liu
Date: Wed Mar 19 2025 - 15:09:39 EST
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:38 AM Weinan Liu <wnliu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:39 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:58:52PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > > On a closer look, I think we also need some logic in unwind_find_stack()
> > > so that we can see when the unwinder hits the exception boundary. For
> > > this reason, we may still need unwind_state.unreliable. I will look into
> > > fixing this and send v2.
> >
> > Isn't that what FRAME_META_TYPE_PT_REGS is for?
> >
> > Maybe it can just tell kunwind_stack_walk() to set a bit in
> > kunwind_state which tells kunwind_next_frame_record_meta() to quit the
> > unwind early for the FRAME_META_TYPE_PT_REGS case. That also has the
> > benefit of stopping the unwind as soon as the exception is encounterd.
> >
>
> After reviewing the code flow, it seems like we should treat all -EINVALID
> cases or `FRAME_META_TYPE_PT_REGS` cases as unreliable unwinds.
Agreed with this: all -EINVALID cases or `FRAME_META_TYPE_PT_REGS`
should be unreliable, IIUC.
>
> Would a simplification like the one below work?
> Or we can return a special value for success cases in kunwind_next_regs_pc()
>
> ```
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 69d0567a0c38..0eb69fa6161a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ do_kunwind(struct kunwind_state *state, kunwind_consume_fn consume_state,
> if (!consume_state(state, cookie))
> break;
> ret = kunwind_next(state);
> - if (ret < 0)
> + if (ret < 0 || state->source == KUNWIND_SOURCE_REGS_PC)
> + state->common.unreliable = true;
I am current leaning toward not using common.unreliable. It seems to add
unnecessary complexity here. But I may change my mind later on.
Thanks,
Song
> break;
> }
> }
> ```
>
> --
> Weinan