x86/Documentation: Adapt Ingo's explanation on printing backtraces

Hold it down for future reference, as the question about the
question mark in stack traces keeps popping up.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1432628901-18044-18-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150521101614.GA10889@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks

@@ -95,3 +95,47 @@ The currently assigned IST stacks are :-
   assumptions about the previous state of the kernel stack.
 
 For more details see the Intel IA32 or AMD AMD64 architecture manuals.
+
+
+Printing backtraces on x86
+--------------------------
+
+The question about the '?' preceding function names in an x86 stacktrace
+keeps popping up, here's an indepth explanation. It helps if the reader
+stares at print_context_stack() and the whole machinery in and around
+arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c.
+
+Adapted from Ingo's mail, Message-ID: <20150521101614.GA10889@gmail.com>:
+
+We always scan the full kernel stack for return addresses stored on
+the kernel stack(s) [*], from stack top to stack bottom, and print out
+anything that 'looks like' a kernel text address.
+
+If it fits into the frame pointer chain, we print it without a question
+mark, knowing that it's part of the real backtrace.
+
+If the address does not fit into our expected frame pointer chain we
+still print it, but we print a '?'. It can mean two things:
+
+ - either the address is not part of the call chain: it's just stale
+   values on the kernel stack, from earlier function calls. This is
+   the common case.
+
+ - or it is part of the call chain, but the frame pointer was not set
+   up properly within the function, so we don't recognize it.
+
+This way we will always print out the real call chain (plus a few more
+entries), regardless of whether the frame pointer was set up correctly
+or not - but in most cases we'll get the call chain right as well. The
+entries printed are strictly in stack order, so you can deduce more
+information from that as well.
+
+The most important property of this method is that we _never_ lose
+information: we always strive to print _all_ addresses on the stack(s)
+that look like kernel text addresses, so if debug information is wrong,
+we still print out the real call chain as well - just with more question
+marks than ideal.
+
+[*] For things like IRQ and IST stacks, we also scan those stacks, in
+    the right order, and try to cross from one stack into another
+    reconstructing the call chain. This works most of the time.