[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78a775310efdd4c0f3505d6b18788408b3a2ea4f.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 00:16:04 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Van Bulck, Jo" <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>
CC: "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/13] selftests/sgx: Handle relocations in test
enclave
On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 01:26 +0200, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
> On 01.09.23 01:13, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > encl_body:
> > > /* snipped */
> > > lea encl_op_array(%rip), %rcx
> > > lea __encl_base(%rip), %rax
> > > add (%rcx,%rdx,8),%rax
> > > jmp *%rax
> >
> > call *%rax
> >
> > ?
> >
> > > ret
>
> Good catch, but this is indeed the code as generated with gcc -Os (for
> readability). It seems the compiler choose a JMP over a CALL (as the
> stack is untouched and the callee can immediately return to the caller).
Ah, OK.
I thought it's a typo, but obviously the compiler is smarter. :-)
>
> Somehow, the compiler still emits a RET after the JMP (which is not
> supposed to return here) though. I agree this is unnecessarily confusing
> and can simply remove the RET from the commit message.
The RET is for encl_body itself I suppose.
>
> Best,
> Jo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists