On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 03:47:49PM +0530, Anurag Aggarwal wrote:
> >You could try adding some debug printks to see how the backtrace fails.
> >You could also try adding a few hand-crafted assembler functions
> >with appropriate code and unwind directives to trigger different kinds
> >of backtrace failure. You might have to add a way to artificially limit
> >sp_high to check the cases where you run out of stack in the middle of
> >popping multiple registers.
>
> I added a a printk statement
> + if (*vsp >= (unsigned long *)ctrl->sp_high) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "Stack Overflow Detected, vsp = %lx",
> + (unsigned long)*vsp);
> + return -URC_FAILURE;
> + }
>
> I ran a many test cases to try and get the above print in the dmesg log.
>
> I tried the following things :
>
> 1) Calling unwind_backtrace from diffrenet locations in the kernel, I
> added the unwind call
> in some irq, fork, exit and some sysfs entries call.
> 2) I limited the value of sp_high in unwind_frame() itself, I tried
> many values of sp_high,
> varrying from (low + sizeof(ctrl.vrs)/4) to (low + 4*sizeof(ctrl.vrs)).
>
> When running the above cases I was able to see the above printk quiet
> a few times in dmesg log.
>
> So, the error condition is being handled.
>
> If you have some test cases for verifying the unwinder, please share
> the same. They might help
> in thorough testing of unwinder.
I think that sounds OK to give us reasonable confidence that the code is
working correctly.
Go ahead and add my Reviewed-by on the patch, if you're still waiting
for it.
Cheers
---Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
