Hi bevis_chen,
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:54 PM lijiang <lijiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 5:18 PM cb126yx <cb126yx@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: bevis_chen <bevis_chen@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> arm64.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/arm64.c b/arm64.c
>>
>> index b3040d7..50dd458 100644
>>
>> --- a/arm64.c
>>
>> +++ b/arm64.c
>>
>> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ static void arm64_get_crash_notes(void);
>>
>> static void arm64_calc_VA_BITS(void);
>>
>> static int arm64_is_uvaddr(ulong, struct task_context *);
>>
>> static void arm64_calc_KERNELPACMASK(void);
>>
>> +static void arm64_recalc_KERNELPACMASK(void);
>>
>> static int arm64_get_vmcoreinfo(unsigned long *vaddr, const char *label, int base);
>>
>>
>> struct kernel_range {
>>
>> @@ -581,6 +582,17 @@ arm64_init(int when)
>>
>> if (!machdep->hz)
>>
>> machdep->hz = 100;
>>
>>
>> + /*
>>
>> + * In the case of using ramdump rather than vmcore,
>>
>> + * will fail to parse out KERNELPAC.
>>
>> + * So we check if the "sturct ptrauth_keys_kernel" exits
>>
>> + * as a basis for whether PAC feature is enabled or not.
>>
>> + * If yes, then we use vabits to figure out pac bitmask.
>>
>> + */
>>
>> + if(!machdep->machspec->CONFIG_ARM64_KERNELPACMASK)
>>
>> + arm64_recalc_KERNELPACMASK();
>>
>> +
>>
>> +
>>
>> arm64_irq_stack_init();
>>
>> arm64_overflow_stack_init();
>>
>> arm64_stackframe_init();
>>
>> @@ -4921,6 +4933,21 @@ static void arm64_calc_KERNELPACMASK(void)
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> +
>>
>> +#define GENMASK_UL(h, l) \
>>
>> + (((~0UL) << (l)) & (~0UL >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (h))))
>>
>> +
>>
>> +static void arm64_recalc_KERNELPACMASK(void){
>>
>> + /* arm64: check if pac already enabled yet from related structure.*/
>>
>> + if (STRUCT_EXISTS("ptrauth_keys_kernel") && machdep->machspec->VA_BITS_ACTUAL){
>>
>> + machdep->machspec->CONFIG_ARM64_KERNELPACMASK =
>>
>> + GENMASK_UL(63, machdep->machspec->VA_BITS_ACTUAL);
>>
>> + if (CRASHDEBUG(1))
>>
>> + fprintf(fp, "CONFIG_ARM64_KERNELPACMASK: %lx\n",
>>
>> + machdep->machspec->CONFIG_ARM64_KERNELPACMASK);
>>
>> + }
>>
>> +}
>>
>> +
>
>
> Thank you for the update, and the above changes are fine to me.
>
> Let's see if Tao has any comments.
Could you please resend your latest patch with title like:
[Crash-utility v4] arm64: Fix bt command show wrong stacktrace on ramdump source
Frankly, the mailing list is a mess, and I get myself lost when
searching for the latest one within the mailing archive...
The above code hunk looks fine to me, but I'd like to see the whole
patch with both code and commit message. In addition, please post any
new version of patch with an updated title like [Crash-utility
v1,v2,v3...] next time.
Thanks,
Tao Liu
>
> Thanks
> Lianbo
>
>> #endif /* ARM64 */
--
Crash-utility mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://${domain_name}/admin/lists/devel.lists.crash-utility.osci.io/
Contribution Guidelines: https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/wiki
