linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIPS

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:21:27 +0800
From:	Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@...glemail.com>,
	Adam Nemet <anemet@...iumnetworks.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support
 for MIPS

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:34 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 11:24 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [...]
> >>> +
> >>> +NESTED(_mcount, PT_SIZE, ra)
> >>> +	RESTORE_SP_FOR_32BIT
> >>> +	PTR_LA	t0, ftrace_stub
> >>> +	PTR_L	t1, ftrace_trace_function /* please don't use t1 later, safe? */
> >> Is t0 and t1 safe for mcount to use? Remember, mcount does not follow
> >> the dynamics of C function ABI.
> > 
> > So, perhaps we can use the saved registers(a0,a1...) instead.
> > 
> 
> a0..a7 may not always be saved.
> 
> You can use at, v0, v1 and all the temporary registers.  Note that for 
> the 64-bit ABIs sometimes the names t0-t4 shadow a4-a7.  So for a 64-bit 
> kernel, you can use: $1, $2, $3, $12, $13, $14, $15, $24, $25, noting 
> that at == $1 and contains the callers ra.  For a 32-bit kernel you can 
> add $8, $9, $10, and $11

before the profiling source code(jal _mcount), there are only necessary
stack operations, nobody have touched the GPRs, so, I think we are safe
to use any of them, that's why the t0,t1 I have used not fail. and
'Cause the a0,a1 is used as the arguments to the real profiling
function, so, I will keep back to use t0, t1, as David Daney said $12,
$13 in 64bit and $8, $9 in 32bit.

Thanks!

Regards,
	Wu Zhangjin

--
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/