On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:37:56AM -0700, Kalesh Singh wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 6:59 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm fine with the concept of splitting the unwind and logging steps; this is > > akin to doing: > > > > stack_trace_save_tsk(...); > > ... > > stack_trace_print(...); > > > > ... and I'm fine with having a stack_trace_save_hyp(...) variant. > > > > However, I would like to ensure that we're reusing logic rather than > > duplicating it wholesale. > > Agreed. Although some reimplementation may be unavoidable, as we can't > safely link against kernel code from the protected KVM hypervisor. Sure; I just mean that we have one implementation, even if that gets recompiled in separate objects for different contexts. > Perhaps we can move some of the common logic to a shared header that > can be included in both places (host, hyp), WDYT? My rough thinking was that we'd build the same stacktrace.c file (reworked from the current one) as stracktrace.o and stacktrace.nvhe.o, but moving things around into headers is also an option. Either way will need some experimentation. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
