Hi, brothers. I was reading the e-mails about the topic, and I have a simple suggestion:
FRAMED_FUNCTION_ENTRYPOINT(xyz) ... FRAMED_FUNCTION_RETPOINT(xyz) -- Atenciosamente, Gustavo da Silva. (Brazil) > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:25:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 08:46:55AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > I like the balance, but the "ret" is still non-obvious. > > > > Does it have to be obvious? > > I feel that making "ret" obvious is better. > > But if somebody messes up and adds a second "ret", I suppose > stackvalidate would warn about the fact that it returned without > restoring the frame pointer. So if there are no other objections, your > suggestion of ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME is fine with me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
