On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:21:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:07:35AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:10:51PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:58:53PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

I'll pull arm64/exception-stack into for-next/core (I haven't got to the
vmap-stack series yet).

If you could hold off for a day, I'd like to make one final change and prevent
use of the final record's LR value, where FP is NULL, since that LR isn't
meaningful, and makes the backtrace look weird:

[ 2785.650646] [<ffff000008082cb0>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
[ 2785.656016] [<0000ffffaf717554>] 0xffffaf717554

Otherwise, I can do that as a fixup.

I'll hold off, I haven't pushed the for-next/core branch out yet.

I've pushed out an updated arm64/exception-stack branch. The HEAD should
be:

  31e43ad3b74a5d7b ("arm64: unwind: remove sp from struct stackframe")

That should have tvhe ASM_BUG() fix, and the below diff folded into the
pt_regs patch, to ensure that backtraces don't use user-controlled PCs
or idmap aliases of startup code.

If you'd like, I can send the updated series as a v3.

No need to, I'll just pull the branch.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin