linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 08/30] net: dsa: mt7530: change p{5,6}_interface to p{5,6}

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240111091936.y3el2yp5tndcnkzn@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:19:36 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
	Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
	Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
	DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	Richard van Schagen <richard@...terhints.com>,
	Richard van Schagen <vschagen@...com>,
	Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
	Bartel Eerdekens <bartel.eerdekens@...stell8.be>,
	erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com, mithat.guner@...ont.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/30] net: dsa: mt7530: change p{5,6}_interface
 to p{5,6}_configured

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:31:11PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 08:05:25PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 08:15:20PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > __builtin_return_address(1) doesn't seem to work. I'm running this on arm64.
> > 
> > I can't tell you why either, I'm sorry. I can just point to the
> > documentation, which does specify that "On some machines it may be
> > impossible to determine the return address of any function other than
> > the current one". If somebody knows what this depends on, feel free to
> > interject.
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Return-Address.html
> > 
> > On my NXP LS1028A (also arm64) plus clang-16 compiler, __builtin_return_address()
> > does work with multiple nesting levels.
> 
> gcc will probably need to be using frame pointers so it can walk the
> stack, if gcc even implements non-zero values to
> __builtin_return_address(). Without frame pointers, it would need an
> unwinder.

Yeah, I guess it's a gcc limitation. I recompiled the kernel for the same
platform with gcc 11.2 from Arm, and I get the same result as Arınç now.