Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:24:41 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: make __get_wchan() use arch_stack_walk() | From | Qi Zheng <> |
| |
On 2023/4/12 21:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:15:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 10:08:22PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 04:15:52PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >>>> Make __get_wchan() use arch_stack_walk() directly to >>>> avoid open-coding of unwind logic. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> >>> >>> Can we just have a shared version of __get_wchan() for all >>> CONFIG_ARCH_STACKWALK arches? >> >> Didn't I do that a while back ? I can't seem to actually find the >> patch-set though :/ > > Could be this series: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211022150933.883959987@infradead.org
Oh, I vaguely remember the beginning because I was trying to fix get_wchan() not supporting ORC unwinder on x86 [1], and then you sent a patch set, and the patch [2] in this patch set tried to implement the shared version of __get_wchan().
[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211008111626.271115116@infradead.org/ [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211008111626.392918519@infradead.org/
> > And this here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjHbKfck1Ws4Y0pUZ7bxdjU9eh2WK0EFsv65utfeVkT9Q@mail.gmail.com/ > > might be why I dropped it.. I can't remember.
Didn't realize I had replied to this email before.
But I also don't see why you dropped it. Looks like you have fixed the UAF problem.
So do we still need to implement a shared version of __get_wchan()? If we still need it, do I need to send it again? Or just pick your previous patch directly? Both are fine to me. :)
Thanks, Qi
| |