[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220321122259.28146a7a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:22:59 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, hjl.tools@...il.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:15:49 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> And I just thought of another issue, where even my solution wont fix it.
> What happens if we trace funcA but not funcB? How do we get to trace the
> end of funcA?
The only solution I can think of to handle all these cases is if you enable
-mfexit, you have to disable tail calls completely. That's going to cause
a performance impact.
Perhaps we need need compiler help to give us a way to hijack the return
address. But is there a way to do this and still not give up the security
that CET SHSTK gives us?
Or maybe another solution is:
funcA:
[..]
jmp funcB
call __fexit__
ret
And if funcA is being traced, we change jmp to a call.
[..]
call funcB
call __fexit__
ret
Such that we only remove the tail calls if we enable tracing on the
function with the tail call.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists