linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190802090320.728f133b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:03:20 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Jiping Ma <Jiping.Ma2@...driver.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <joel@...lfernandes.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch
 in arm64

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:43:03 +0800
Jiping Ma <Jiping.Ma2@...driver.com> wrote:

> > *Why* does the frame appear to be off-by-one?  
> Because the PC is LR in ARM64 stack actually.  Following is ARM64 stack 
> layout. Please refer to the figure 3 in 
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0055b/IHI0055B_aapcs64.pdf
>              LR
>              FP
>              ......
>              LR
>              FP

And the LR holds the return address, right? Which would be identical to
x86 and every other arch I know about.

-- Steve