[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <701ff3888b3f42f4a6a1dded84b79078@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 22:27:17 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Mathieu Desnoyers' <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
carlos <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension
> That being said, there might be an architecture agnostic alternative available.
> On abort of a RSEQ_CS_FLAG_ABORT_AT_IP critical section, we could let the kernel
> decrement/increment the stack pointer to make room for a pointer (depending if the
> stack grows down or up). It would then store the abort-at-ip value at the top of
> stack.
Stack redzone in a leaf function?
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists