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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:17 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] sched, x86: Optimize the preempt_schedule() call * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote: > >>> On 10.09.13 at 15:42, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote: > > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > > >> + .macro SAVE_ALL > >> + pushl_cfi %eax > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET eax, 0 > >> + pushl_cfi %ebp > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET ebp, 0 > >> + pushl_cfi %edi > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET edi, 0 > >> + pushl_cfi %esi > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET esi, 0 > >> + pushl_cfi %edx > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET edx, 0 > >> + pushl_cfi %ecx > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET ecx, 0 > >> + pushl_cfi %ebx > >> + CFI_REL_OFFSET ebx, 0 > >> + .endm > >> + > >> + .macro RESTORE_ALL > >> + popl_cfi %ebx > >> + CFI_RESTORE ebx > >> + popl_cfi %ecx > >> + CFI_RESTORE ecx > >> + popl_cfi %edx > >> + CFI_RESTORE edx > >> + popl_cfi %esi > >> + CFI_RESTORE esi > >> + popl_cfi %edi > >> + CFI_RESTORE edi > >> + popl_cfi %ebp > >> + CFI_RESTORE ebp > >> + popl_cfi %eax > >> + CFI_RESTORE eax > >> + .endm > > > > Side note: shouldn't the pushl_cfi and popl_cfi macros be adjusted, > > instead of open coding it? > > If you mean the open coding of CFI_REL_OFFSET and CFI_RESTORE, then no - > there may be pushes/pops that don't save the caller's register values > (i.e. where solely the frame pointer adjustment matters). Ok. > If you meant something else, please clarify what. No, that's what I meant. Thanks, Ingo -- 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