[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45FF3CB1.7080301@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:45:21 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
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
Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> 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.
What do you mean the instruction before is "mov $0x52515000,%eax"?
Yeah, you're right. Oh well.
J
-
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