[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK1hOcMqqcp=-4Q49VqcO1kNFdvaNy0H6PiUfKyknE2hjQmkrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 23:03:04 +0100
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: open-code register save/restore in
trace_hardirqs thunks
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S
>> @@ -17,9 +17,27 @@
>> CFI_STARTPROC
>>
>> /* this one pushes 9 elems, the next one would be %rIP */
>> - SAVE_ARGS
>> + pushq_cfi %rdi
>> + CFI_REL_OFFSET rdi, 0
>
> Btw, why the second CFI annotation?
>
> pushq_cfi does already CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 8. Can't we use one and
> hide it in the macro?
We probably should.
Since thunk_32.S uses the very same construct, I think it should be fixed
in both files by one patch.
--
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