Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: reliable stacktraces

2018-08-10 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > This is more an RFC in the original sense: is this basically > the correct approach? (as I had to tweak the API a bit). > > In particular the code does not detect interrupts and exception > frames, and does not yet check whether the

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: reliable stacktraces

2018-08-10 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:03:11PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > This is more an RFC in the original sense: is this basically > the correct approach? (as I had to tweak the API a bit). > > In particular the code does not detect interrupts and exception > frames, and does not yet check whether the

[PATCH 3/3] arm64: reliable stacktraces

2018-08-10 Thread Torsten Duwe
This is more an RFC in the original sense: is this basically the correct approach? (as I had to tweak the API a bit). In particular the code does not detect interrupts and exception frames, and does not yet check whether the code address is valid. The latter check would also have to be omitted

[PATCH 3/3] arm64: reliable stacktraces

2018-08-10 Thread Torsten Duwe
This is more an RFC in the original sense: is this basically the correct approach? (as I had to tweak the API a bit). In particular the code does not detect interrupts and exception frames, and does not yet check whether the code address is valid. The latter check would also have to be omitted