On 3/19/21 9:29 AM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > > > On 3/19/21 7:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:26:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: >>> On 3/18/21 10:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> >>>> If we are going to add the extra record there would probably be less >>>> potential for confusion if we pointed it at some sensibly named dummy >>>> function so anything or anyone that does see it on the stack doesn't get >>>> confused by a NULL. >> >>> I agree. I will think about this some more. If no other solution presents >>> itself, I will add the dummy function. >> >> After discussing this with Mark Rutland offlist he convinced me that so >> long as we ensure the kernel doesn't print the NULL record we're >> probably OK here, the effort setting the function pointer up correctly >> in all circumstances (especially when we're not in the normal memory >> map) is probably not worth it for the limited impact it's likely to have >> to see the NULL pointer (probably mainly a person working with some >> external debugger). It should be noted in the changelog though, and/or >> merged in with the relevant change to the unwinder. >> > > OK. I will add a comment as well as note it in the changelog. > > Thanks to both of you. > > Madhavan > I thought about this some more. I think I have a simple solution. I will prepare a patch and send it out. If you and Mark Rutland approve, I will include it in the next version of this RFC. Madhavan
