[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160106175948.GA16647@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:59:49 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Robert <elliott@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] x86: Add classes to exception tables
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:54:19AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I assume that this zero is to save the couple of bytes for the
> relocation entry on relocatable kernels?
I didn't want to touch all _ASM_EXTABLE() macro invocations by adding a
third param @handler which is redundant as we know which it is.
> > + new_ip = ex_fixup_addr(e);
> > + handler = ex_fixup_handler(e);
> > +
> > + if (!handler)
> > + handler = ex_handler_default;
>
> the !handler condition here will never trigger because the offset was
> already applied.
Actually, if I do "0 - .", that would overflow the int because current
location is virtual address and that's 64-bit. Or would gas simply
truncate it? Lemme check...
Anyway, what we should do instead is simply
.long 0
to denote that the @handler is implicit.
Right?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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