From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E609CB1B for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.emea.novell.com (mail.emea.novell.com [130.57.118.101]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EA8101 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 23:21:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Masami Hiramatsu In-Reply-To: <559D4C35.6070709@hitachi.com> Message-ID: References: <559D4C35.6070709@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] live patching List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > - stack unwinding has so far been deemed purely debugging facility, with > > no correctness guarantees whatsoever. One of the possible aproaches to > > improving the coverage of live patching infrastructure would assume > > 100% reliability of in-kernel stack unwinding. > > > > Is this something that should be pursued further? Especially opinions > > and comments from various arch maintainers would be welcome > > Yeah, at least the live patch would be better to depend on a frame-pointer > to improve correctness... I actually think that Josh is planning to add dwarf2 CFI support as well (but yes, first step is getting frame pointer based unwinding to work properly). Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs