[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1505222317370.13817@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:18:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Hm, alternatives do complicate things a bit. It *is* a false positive,
> but not necessarily because its part of an alternative instruction
> block.
>
> The above code would be patched into memmove(), which is a leaf function
> because it doesn't call any other functions. Leaf functions don't need
> frame pointer logic, so we can ignore them.
>
> If instead the above code were patched into a non-leaf function, we'd
> have to change it to restore the frame pointer before returning.
Is this really only a problem of alternatives? How about
dynamically-enabled tracepoints?
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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