On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 09:26:42AM +0800, Wangshaobo (bobo) wrote: > > > 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. I want to run some regression tests, so it will probably be next week. -- Josh
