[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140121112004.GH30706@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:20:04 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Arnaldo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64: perf: support dwarf unwinding in compat mode
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:05:14PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Here is an updated version of the change, which uses compat_sp at only
> one place.
> The drawback is that compat_user_mode is checked when calling
> compat_user_stack_pointer, which seems unnecessary. Unfortunately the
> check is not optimized out by the complier as I could check with
> objdump -S.
>
> What do you think?
I think that's cleaner and really wouldn't worry about the couple of extra
instructions.
Cheers,
Will
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> index fda2704..e71f81f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static inline compat_uptr_t ptr_to_compat(void __user *uptr)
> return (u32)(unsigned long)uptr;
> }
>
> -#define compat_user_stack_pointer() (current_pt_regs()->compat_sp)
> +#define compat_user_stack_pointer() (user_stack_pointer(current_pt_regs()))
>
> static inline void __user *arch_compat_alloc_user_space(long len)
> {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> index fbb0020..86d5b54 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ struct pt_regs {
> (!((regs)->pstate & PSR_F_BIT))
>
> #define user_stack_pointer(regs) \
> - ((regs)->sp)
> + (!compat_user_mode(regs)) ? ((regs)->sp) : ((regs)->compat_sp)
>
> /*
> * Are the current registers suitable for user mode? (used to maintain
--
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