[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150718154002.GA19968@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 10:40:02 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
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>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in
aesni-intel_asm.S
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:25:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 08:46:55AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I like the balance, but the "ret" is still non-obvious.
>
> Does it have to be obvious?
I feel that making "ret" obvious is better.
But if somebody messes up and adds a second "ret", I suppose
stackvalidate would warn about the fact that it returned without
restoring the frame pointer. So if there are no other objections, your
suggestion of ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME is fine with me.
--
Josh
--
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