On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 06:38:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 05:06:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > Just to check, has the skipping logic been tested to work equivalently > > to what we had before? By inspection I think it should, but since it > > relies on function call boundaries it always strikes me as fragile. > > > If you could confirm that (e.g. with LKDTM perhaps?) that'd be great. > > Assuming that looks right, for the series: > > I've tested this with LKDTM and otherwise and didn't spot any issues > (and just did a bit of retesting) but it is a pretty manual process so > it's possible I missed something. It looks like the case Mirolav pointed out (self-bactrace with NULL regs) isn't triggered by LKDTM (since it always causes a backtrace from an exception with non-NULL regs), but we do rely on that elsewhere in the kernel. It might be worth adding an LKDTM test to trigger that. I'll wait for a respin that handles that -- please drop the ack for now. Thanks, Mark.
