On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:43:33 +1100 Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:09:24 +0100 > Torsten Duwe <duwe@xxxxxx> wrote: > > +save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk, > > + struct stack_trace *trace) > > Just double checking this is called under the task_rq_lock, so its > safe to call task_stack_page() as opposed to try_get_task_stack() Yes. IIRC a comment at the call site mentioned it. [...] > > + if (sp < stack_page + sizeof(struct thread_struct) > > + || sp > stack_page + THREAD_SIZE - > > STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD) > > + return 1; > > Some of this is already present in validate_sp(), it also validates > irq stacks, should we just reuse that? This goes a bit along one of Josh's points; I'll answer there, OK? [...] > Looks good to me otherwise. > > Acked-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks. Torsten -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
