[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200401202053.GI2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 22:20:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] objtool,ftrace: Implement UNWIND_HINT_RET_OFFSET
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:20:15PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:45:44 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > I believe what Julien is saying is the above logic is equivalent:
> > >
> > > if (x != y &&
> > > !(z && x == y + z))
> > >
> > > is the same as:
> > >
> > > if (x != y + z)
> >
> > It is not, the former will accept either x==y || x==y+z, while the
> > latter will only accept x==y+z.
>
> No, the former accepts:
>
> x==y || (z && x == y + z)
>
> Which is the same as: x == y + z
>
> As the second condition is only tested if z != 0, and x == y is the same
> as x == y + 0
Right, so it accepts both +0 and +z, while the latter will only accept
+z.
( in the iret case I had offset at +0 and stack_size at +40, while with
the ftrace case I had both at +8; which is why I wrote the form that
accepts +0 and +z )
Anyway, I tested it, and for the ftrace case (the only current user of
the hint) +z is correct for both offset and stack_size. I build both FP
and ORC variants.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists