On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 4:16 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, I think we should, but others people could add more to this. > > I have been testing this series with Kpatch and created a PR that works > with this unwinder: https://github.com/dynup/kpatch/pull/1439 > > For the modules, I think we need per module sframe tables that are > initialised when the module is loaded. And the unwinder should use the > module specific table if the IP is in a module's code. > > Have you already started working on it? if not I would like to help and > work on that. > > Thanks, > Puranjay Thanks for updating the arm64 kpatch PR so quickly. So we can use kpatch to test this proposal. I already have a WIP patch to add sframe support to the kernel module. However, it is not yet working. I had trouble unwinding frames for the kernel module using the current algorithm. Indu has likely identified the issue and will be addressing it from the toolchain side. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32666
