[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200417122553.GD20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:25:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jthierry@...hat.com, alexandre.chartre@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/17] objtool: Better handle IRET
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 01:29:32PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > + case INSN_EXCEPTION_RETURN:
> > + if (handle_insn_ops(insn, &state))
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This handles x86's sync_core() case, where we use an
> > + * IRET to self. All 'normal' IRET instructions are in
> > + * STT_NOTYPE entry symbols.
> > + */
> > + if (func)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > case INSN_CONTEXT_SWITCH:
> > if (func && (!next_insn || !next_insn->hint)) {
> > WARN_FUNC("unsupported instruction in callable function",
>
> It looks really simple.
>
> Have you tried Julien's proposal about removing INSN_STACK altogether,
> move the x86 to arch/x86/ and call handle_insn_ops() unconditionally, or
> have you just postponed it? As I said, I think it could be better in the
> long term, but the above looks good for now as well.
If you look at this other set I send yesterday:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416150752.569029800@infradead.org
(also, sorry for not adding you to the Cc; also best look at the gitweb
version, the patches I send out are missing a hunk and lacking some
back-merges.. clearly I wasn't having a good day yesterday).
it has this intra_function_calls crud that needs explicit conditional
handle_insn_ops().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists