lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:55:05 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing/function-graph: x86_64 stack allocation cleanup On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:47:27PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 19:05 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:05:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> > > > > > > Only 24 bytes needs to be reserved on the stack for the function graph > > > tracer on x86_64. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> > > > LKML-Reference: <20090729085837.GB4998@...sa.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 6 +++--- > > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S > > > index c251be7..d59fe32 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S > > > @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ ENTRY(ftrace_graph_caller) > > > END(ftrace_graph_caller) > > > > > > GLOBAL(return_to_handler) > > > - subq $80, %rsp > > > + subq $24, %rsp > > > > > > That's theoretically a good fix. > > > > But Steve, do you remember the weird issues we had while only > > saving the theoretically strict needed stack space here? > > > > It made the function graph tracer crashing in x86-64, and we > > never found out why we needed to save more stack than needed. > > > > Sorry that may sound like a FUD message but I can't explain > > the reason of this, and I fear we may met it again. > > > > Well, at least that may help us finding out the real resons of > > such crashes, but... > > I did not forget about them, and that's the reason that I did not apply > them in the beginning. But that was long ago, and we fixed lots of > issues. I remember hitting crashes with the patch too, but I've applied > this and ran it on those same machines and I no longer get those > crashes. Thus, my thinking is that we already fixed the bug that was > causing it. > > Only way to know for sure is to apply it and let it out into the > wild ;-) Ok, fine then :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists