[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150717194613.GQ19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:46:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/21] sched: Add __schedule() to stackvalidate
whitelist
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:47:28AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> stackvalidate reports the following warnings for __schedule():
>
> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x3e7: duplicate frame pointer save
> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x424: sibling call from callable instruction with changed frame pointer
> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x431: call without frame pointer save/setup
> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x8b8: frame pointer state mismatch
> stackvalidate: kernel/sched/core.o: __schedule()+0x447: frame pointer state mismatch
>
> __schedule() is obviously a special case which is allowed to do unusual
> things with the frame pointer.
Yes, but is the code actually correct? We can't dismiss the warnings
just on that basis alone.
--
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