On 2024/3/20 11:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:30:13AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
>> The checkpatch.pl script reports the "WARNING: printk() should
>> include KERN_ facility level" warning.
>>
>> That's why I changed printk to pr_warn.
>> I should change printk to print
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:30:13AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
> The checkpatch.pl script reports the "WARNING: printk() should
> include KERN_ facility level" warning.
>
> That's why I changed printk to pr_warn.
> I should change printk to printk(KERN_DEFAULT).
No, you should ignore checkpatch.
On 2024/3/20 10:46, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:19:29AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
>> This is an off-by-one bug which is common in unwinders,
>> due to the fact that the address on the stack points
>> to the return address rather than the call address.
>>
>> So, for example,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:19:29AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
> This is an off-by-one bug which is common in unwinders,
> due to the fact that the address on the stack points
> to the return address rather than the call address.
>
> So, for example, when the last instruction of a function
> is a
