[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw+WVjwPBPKpnKcZUkqX=mYWv7A6M44uJpmWuzGU0zpqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:52:21 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled
> on x86_32 just like we already do on x86_64.
Ugh. I realize we have workarounds for bugs, but I think
-maccumulate-outgoing-args is nasty. It just generates worse code by
avoiding the much nicer push/pop sequences, afaik.
On x86-64 it's not such a big deal, because we pass the first six
arguments in registers anyway, so the arguments on the stack is a
fairly unusual special case.
But on x86-32, we only have three argument registers, so this
braindamage is potentially worse.
I guess we already do this in most situations due to the gcc bugs, but
I do think it's sad that we would do it for our _own_ bugs too.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists