On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 05:00:50PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 03:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > That said, the kernel has much more custom features than other projects.
> > There are some sneaky macros, like _ASM_EXTABLE and ALTERNATIVE, which
> > hide code in various sections. Un
On 06/12/2015 03:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 06/11/2015 03:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>
>>> C would definitely make more sense when analyzing object code. In fact,
>>> asmvalidate is written in C. But then I guess we'd have
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 03:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > C would definitely make more sense when analyzing object code. In fact,
> > asmvalidate is written in C. But then I guess we'd have to re-implement
> > the .cfi stuff and populate t
On 06/11/2015 03:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> C would definitely make more sense when analyzing object code. In fact,
> asmvalidate is written in C. But then I guess we'd have to re-implement
> the .cfi stuff and populate the DWARF sections manually instead of
> letting the assembler do it.
W
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 08:10:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > I imagine that an automatic CFI annotation adder would walk through
> > > functions
> > > one instruction at a time and keep track of the frame state. If so, then
> > > it
> > > could verify that commo
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 08:08:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > I should also mention that my proposed ia32_ptregs_common patch, which
> > duplicated the needed code, was more optimized for performance than code
> > size.
> >
> > But if you're more worried about
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I imagine that an automatic CFI annotation adder would walk through
> > functions
> > one instruction at a time and keep track of the frame state. If so, then it
> > could verify that common jump targets had identical state and continue
> > walking
> > through th
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> I should also mention that my proposed ia32_ptregs_common patch, which
> duplicated the needed code, was more optimized for performance than code size.
>
> But if you're more worried about code size, we could turn ia32_ptregs_common
> into a proper callable function,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:58:45PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:15:19AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Josh Poimboeuf
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> GCC can generate those,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:15:19AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> >> > 2. Each callable function must never leave i
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> >
> > Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host
> > tool which runs on every compiled .S file. Its goal is to enforce sane
> > rules on all asm code, s
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
>> >
>> > Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host
>> > tool which runs on every compiled .S
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
>> >
>> > Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host
>> > tool which runs on every compiled .S
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
> >
> > Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host
> > tool which runs on every compiled .S file. Its goal is to enforce sane
> > rules on all asm code, s
On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" wrote:
>
> Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host
> tool which runs on every compiled .S file. Its goal is to enforce sane
> rules on all asm code, so that stack debug metadata (frame/back chain
> pointers and/or DWARF CFI m
Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host
tool which runs on every compiled .S file. Its goal is to enforce sane
rules on all asm code, so that stack debug metadata (frame/back chain
pointers and/or DWARF CFI metadata) can be made reliable.
It enforces the following ru
16 matches
Mail list logo
