[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190410033732.ibtpnd36655afpfj@treble>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 22:37:32 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] objtool: Add support for Arm64
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:43:18AM -0700, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 06:53, Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As of now, objtool only supports the x86_64 architecture but the
> > groundwork has already been done in order to add support for other
> > architecture without too much effort.
> >
> > This series of patches adds support for the arm64 architecture
> > based on the Armv8.5 Architecture Reference Manual.
> >
>
> I think it makes sense to clarify *why* we want this on arm64. Also,
> we should identify things that objtool does today that maybe we don't
> want on arm64, rather than buy into all of it by default.
Agreed, the "why" should at least be in the cover letter. From my
perspective, the "why" includes:
- Live patching - objtool stack validation is the foundation for a
reliable unwinder
- ORC unwinder - benefits include presumed improved overall performance
from disabling frame pointers, and the ability to unwind across
interrupts and exceptions
- PeterZ's new uaccess validation?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists