On 5/6/21 8:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:48:21PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

quoted

On 5/5/21 11:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

I think that works even if it's hard to love the goto, might want some
defensiveness to ensure we can't somehow end up in an infinite loop with
a sufficiently badly formed stack.

quoted

I could do something like this:

quoted

unwind_frame()
{
	int	i;
	...

	for (i = 0; i < MAX_CHECKS; i++) {
		if (!check_frame(tsk, frame))
			break;
	}

I think that could work, yes.  Have to see the actual code (and other
people's opinions!).

quoted

If this is acceptable, then the only question is - what should be the value of
MAX_CHECKS (I will rename it to something more appropriate)?

I'd expect something like 10 to be way more than we'd ever need, or we
could define it down to the 2 checks we expect to be possible ATM to be
conservative.  I'm tempted to be permissive if we have sufficient other
checks but I'm not 100% sure on that.

OK. I will implement these changes for version 4 and send it out so this
whole thing can be reviewed again with the actual changes in front of us.

Madhavan

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel