linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Makefile: Include arch Makefiles as late as possible

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]

Message-Id: <1234657196.26036.86.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:19:56 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Makefile: Include arch Makefiles as late as
 possible

On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 23:03 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> So the question is: even with FRAME_POINTERS disabled on PPC, is 
> __builtin_return_address(1)/(2) reliable, and is save_stack_trace() fast? (i.e.
> can it walk down the stack frame efficiently, or does it have to scan the full
> kernel stack) I.e. does PPC have all the material advantages of frame pointers?

Yes, we do. We effectively have frame pointers in fact, they may only be
omitted in leaf functions but then gcc __builtin_return_address() knows
how to handle that afaik.

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/