在 2020/6/4 10:40, Josh Poimboeuf 写道:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:24:55AM +0800, Wangshaobo (bobo) wrote:
在 2020/6/3 23:33, Josh Poimboeuf 写道:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:06:07PM +0800, Wangshaobo (bobo) wrote:
To be honest, I don't remember what I meant by sibling calls. They
don't even leave anything on the stack.
For noreturns, the code might be laid out like this:
func1:
...
call noreturn_foo
func2:
func2 is immediately after the call to noreturn_foo. So the return
address on the stack will actually be 'func2'. We want to retrieve the
ORC data for the call instruction (inside func1), instead of the
instruction at the beginning of func2.
I should probably update that comment.
So, I want to ask is there any side effects if i modify like this ? this
modification is based on
your fix. It looks like ok with proper test.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
index e9cc182aa97e..ecce5051e8fd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
@@ -620,6 +620,7 @@ void __unwind_start(struct unwind_state *state, struct
task_struct *task,
state->sp = task->thread.sp;
state->bp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(frame->bp);
state->ip = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(frame->ret_addr);
+ state->signal = ((void *)state->ip == ret_from_fork);
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
index 7f969b2d240f..d7396431261a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
@@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ bool unwind_next_frame(struct unwind_state *state)
state->sp = sp;
state->regs = NULL;
state->prev_regs = NULL;
- state->signal = ((void *)state->ip == ret_from_fork);
+ state->signal = false;
break;
Yes that's correct.
Hi, josh
Could i ask when are you free to send the patch, all the tests are
passed by.
thanks for your help.
Wang ShaoBo
