[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK1hOcNr==AWteYy1Q7wGA6i5qCWZPQbnX1MJ3zZFEKD543zOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:06:04 +0100
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 04:33:58AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> I understand Andy's post.
>> My question is, what about places like this?
>>
>> > .macro op_safe_regs op
>> > ENTRY(\op\()_safe_regs)
>> > CFI_STARTPROC
>> > pushl_cfi %ebx
>> > pushl_cfi %ebp
>> > pushl_cfi %esi
>> > pushl_cfi %edi
>>
>> Do we need to convert it to use macros which also do
>> "CFI_REL_OFFSET reg, 0" thingy, or not?
>> In either case: why?
>
> What is different at those places to not use the CFI annotations?
Okay, sending a patch which _probably_ does the right thing...
--
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