[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507163440.GV2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 18:34:40 +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 08:31:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The reality is that changing something fundamental like the kernel
> stack at this point for an architecture that will not change in the
> future is silly.
In my eyes it makes sense because i386 is a minority architecture at
this point, and 'nobody' wants to care about how its different if they
don't have to.
> The reality is that Peter's patch is much bigger than mine, because it
> needed a lot of other changes *because* it did that change.
Yes, I change the way stack layout works on i386, and yes that affects a
lot of code. _However_ all of that code is now more like x86_64 than it
was.
Earlier you said that kernel_stack_pointer() was a horrible thing; and
most/all the code that I ended up touching was similarly horrible.
Would you consider my approach later on, under the guise of unification?
We can work on it for a while, and make sure all the iffy bits are
sorted, no need to rush?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists