On 3/10/22 02:33, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:00:35PM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: >> >>> It is just that patch 11 that defines "select >>> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE" did not receive any comments from you >>> (unless I missed a comment that came from you. That is entirely >>> possible. If I missed it, my bad). Since you suggested that change, I >>> just wanted to make sure that that patch looks OK to you. >> >> I think that's more a question for the livepatch people to be honest - >> it's not entirely a technical one, there's a bunch of confidence level >> stuff going on. For example there was some suggestion that people might >> insist on having objtool support, though there's also substantial >> pushback on making objtool a requirement for anything from other >> quarters. I was hoping that posting that patch would provoke some >> discussion about what exactly is needed but that's not happened thus >> far. > > I think everyone will be happy with HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE on arm64 as > long as there is a guarantee that stack traces are really reliable. My > understanding is that there is still some work to be done on arm64 arch > side (but I may have misunderstood what Mark R. said elsewhere). And yes, > then there is a question of objtool. It is one option but not the only > one. There have been proposals of implementing guarantees on a compiler > side and leaving objtool for x86_64 only (albeit objtool may bring more > features to the table... ORC, arch features checking). > > Madhavan also mentioned that he enhanced objtool and he planned to submit > it eventually > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/1a0e19db-a7f8-4c8e-0163-398fcd364d54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u), > so maybe arm64 maintainers could decide on a future direction based on > that? > Yes. I am working on that right now. Hope to send it out soon. Madhavan
