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, 24 Feb 2012 09:49:50 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <>
To:	"Mark Wielaard" <>
Cc:	"Frederic Weisbecker (commit_signer:4/25=16%)" <>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <>,
	"Thomas Gleixner(maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE...)" 
	"Andi Kleen(commit_signer:5/25=20%)" <>,
	"commit_signer:11/25=44%)Ingo Molnar (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." 
	<>, <>,
	"commit_signer:4/25=16%) H. Peter Anvin(maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." 
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix CFI data for common_interrupt

>>> On 21.02.12 at 23:08, Mark Wielaard <> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 03:26:30PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> But provided the specification mandates this, I'm okay with the change
>> in principle. Just that specifying an offset of 0 doesn't look right then.
> Yeah, I dunno what I was thinking. The offset should be set to the offset
> that was there before when rsi was pushed. The attached patch does that
> by using the same value as was used at the start of common_interrupt.
> Does that look OK?

As written before, it ought to be

	CFI_DEF_CFA		rsi,SS+8-RBP /* reg/off reset after def_cfa_expr */

With that, feel free to add

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <>

when you re-submit.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists