[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200331212040.7lrzmj7tbbx2jgrj@treble>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:20:40 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] objtool,ftrace: Implement UNWIND_HINT_RET_OFFSET
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:17:58PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I'm not against adding a second/separate hint for this. In fact, I
> > almost considered teaching objtool how to interpret the whole IRET frame
> > so that we can do it without hints. It's just that that's too much code
> > for this one case.
> >
> > HINT_IRET_SELF ?
>
> Despite my earlier complaint about stack size knowledge, we could just
> forget the hint and make "iretq in C code" equivalent to "reduce stack
> size by arch_exception_stack_size()" and keep going. There's
> file->c_file which tells you it's a C file.
Or maybe "iretq in an STT_FUNC" is better since this pattern could
presumably happen in a callable asm function.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists