[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45FF3793.5050308@vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:23:31 -0800
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
anthony@...emonkey.ws, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops
callsites to make them patchable
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> For example, say we wanted to put a general call for sti into entry.S,
> where its expected it won't touch any registers. In that case, we'd
> have a sequence like:
>
> push %eax
> push %ecx
> push %edx
> call paravirt_cli
> pop %edx
> pop %ecx
> pop %eax
>
>
> If we parse the relocs, then we'd find the reference to paravirt_cli.
> If we look at the byte before and see 0xe8, then we can see if its a
> call. If we then work out in each direction and see matched push/pops,
> then we know what registers can be trashed in the call. This also
> allows us to determine the callsite size, and therefore how much space
> we need for inlining.
>
No, that is a very dangerous suggestion. You absolutely *cannot* do
this safely without explicitly marking the start EIP of this code. You
*must* use metadata to do that. It is never safe to disassemble
backwards or "rewind" EIP for x86 code.
Zach
-
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