On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:50:16PM -0800, Dylan Hatch wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 12:55 PM Puranjay Mohan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I will try to debug this more but am just curious about BPF's > > interactions with sframe. > > The sframe data for bpf programs doesn't exist, so we would need to > > add that support > > and that wouldn't be trivial, given the BPF programs are JITed. > > > > Thanks, > > Puranjay > > From what I can tell, the ORC unwinder in x86 falls back to using > frame pointers in cases of generated code, like BPF. Would matching > this behavior in the sframe unwinder be a reasonable approach, at > least for the purposes of enabling reliable unwind for livepatch?
The ORC unwinder marks the unwind "unreliable" if it has to fall back to frame pointers. But that's not a problem for livepatch because it only[*] unwinds blocked/sleeping tasks, which shouldn't have BPF on their stack anyway. [*] with one exception: the task calling into livepatch -- Josh
