From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Anurag Aggarwal <anurag19aggarwal@gmail.com>
Cc: naveen.sel@samsung.com,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
narendra.m1@samsung.com, nico@linaro.org,
Anurag Aggarwal <a.anurag@samsung.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
will.deacon@arm.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cpgs@samsung.com, naveenkrishna.ch@gmail.com,
rajat.suri@samsung.com,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
mohammad.a2@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: unwinder: Handle Stackoverflow in unwind_exec_insn
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:37:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131122193703.GA2286@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPoNrtuuHOB5d+vo-wGJ=5JQG=K0ZdaAv2Nyfxnit=WAWzXegg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 12:28:57PM +0530, Anurag Aggarwal wrote:
> Thanks for your input Dave,
>
> I think there is another way to avoid the stack overflow and reduce
> the number of checks also,
>
> Stack overflow will cause a problem only when we are backtracking the
> last set of registers.
> i.e when the difference between current SP and top of stack is less
> than or equal to number of registers
Apologies, it looks like I failed to respond to this earlier...
Although that will usually be correct, there is no rule in the ABI to
guarantee it.
> we can create two unwind_exec_insn, one without checks and one with checks.
>
> then we call the correct function from unwind_frame depending on the
> difference of SP and top of stack.
>
> This will reduce the amount of checks every time we read a set of
> registers from stack
That sounds like it might duplicate a lot of code, to optimise based on
assumptions that may not always be true, for what really should not be a
hot path in the kernel.
If you can find a tidy way of doing it, it would be certainly worth
reviewing, but I still think it would be simpler just to do a simple
bounds check for every word read from the stack -- it should be
impossible for that to go wrong, even if some of the bounds checks
are not stictly required.
Cheers
---Dave
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-22 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-06 9:50 Anurag Aggarwal
2013-11-08 13:21 ` Dave Martin
2013-11-09 6:58 ` Anurag Aggarwal
2013-11-22 19:37 ` Dave Martin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131122193703.GA2286@e103592.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=a.anurag@samsung.com \
--cc=anurag19aggarwal@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cpgs@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mohammad.a2@samsung.com \
--cc=narendra.m1@samsung.com \
--cc=naveen.sel@samsung.com \
--cc=naveenkrishna.ch@gmail.com \
--cc=nico@linaro.org \
--cc=rajat.suri@samsung.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®