[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220416010750.cuf7tf5dgd434kac@treble>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:07:50 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, broonie@...nel.org, ardb@...nel.org,
nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com, sjitindarsingh@...il.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/9] arm64: livepatch: Use DWARF Call Frame
Information for frame pointer validation
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:18:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> > There are actually several similarities between your new format and ORC,
> > which is also an objtool-created DWARF alternative. It would be
> > interesting to see if they could be combined somehow.
> >
>
> I will certainly look into it. So, if I decide to merge the two, I might want
> to make a minor change to the ORC structure. Would that be OK with you?
Yes, in fact I would expect it, since ORC is quite x86-specific at the
moment. So it would need some abstractions to make it more multi-arch
friendly.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists