[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874klmwxxm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:18:29 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: violating function pointer signature
* Peter Zijlstra:
>> The default Linux calling conventions are all of the cdecl family,
>> where the caller pops the argument off the stack. You didn't quote
>> enough to context to tell whether other calling conventions matter in
>> your case.
>
> This is strictly in-kernel, and I think we're all cdecl, of which the
> important part is caller-cleanup. The function compiles to:
>
> RET
>
> so whatever the arguments are is irrelevant.
Yes, then the stub is ABI-compatible, as far as I know.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists