Hi Will,
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 03:00:29PM -0700, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
>> Remove superfluous stack frame, saving us 3 instructions for
>> every JMP_CALL.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim <zlim....@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 3 ---
>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index 51abc97..7ae304e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -578,11 +578,8 @@ emit_cond_jmp:
>> const u64 func = (u64)__bpf_call_base + imm;
>>
>> emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, func, ctx);
>> - emit(A64_PUSH(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx);
>> - emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_FP, A64_SP), ctx);
>> emit(A64_BLR(tmp), ctx);
>> emit(A64_MOV(1, r0, A64_R(0)), ctx);
>> - emit(A64_POP(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx);
>> break;
>> }
>
> Is the jitted code intended to be unwindable by standard tools?
Before this patch:
bpf_prologue => push stack frame
...
jmp_call => push stack frame, call bpf_helper*, pop stack frame
...
bpf_epilogue => pop stack frame, ret
Now:
bpf_prologue => push stack frame
...
jmp_call => call bpf_helper*
...
bpf_epilogue => pop stack frame, ret
*Note: bpf_helpers in kernel/bpf/helper.c
So yes, it's still unwindable.
>
> Will
