[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507173829.GY2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 19:38:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:08:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:34 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Would you consider my approach later on, under the guise of unification?
>
> WHY?
>
> The *only* advantage of your patch is that trivial "look up kernel stack" macro.
>
> Seriously. There's absolutely nothing else.
The ftrace_regs_caller, the kprobe tramplines, the unwinder, they all
have 'funny' bits because pt_regs isn't 'right'.
> So the whole "let's clean up x86-32 to look like x86-64, which got
> things right" is to me a completely bogus argument. x86-64 got the
> "yes, push ss/sp unconditionally" part right, but got a lot of other
> things horribly wrong. So this is all just one small detail that
> differs, across two architectures that are similar but have very
> different warts.
It's a detail that leaks into the C code. Yes SWAPGS is horrible crap,
but C code doesn't much care. The partial pt_regs thing otoh comes up a
fair number of times.
Anyway; I think we're at the point where we'll have to agree to
disagree (or maybe slightly past it).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists