On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 01:00:06PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 07:21:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Ok, I see how the naming scheme I proposed won't work with all that very
> > well, but
> > I'd still suggest using consistently named pat
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:00:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 08:30:52AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> > > wrote:
> > > > The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 08:30:52AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to try to
> > > prevent it from being accidentally used for leaf functions, where
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 07:21:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I should point out that there are still a few cases where the more granular
> > FRAME/ENDFRAME and ENTRY/ENDPROC macros would still be needed
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to try to
> > > prevent it
> > > from being accidentally used for leaf functions, where it isn't needed.
> >
> > Well, we could use LEAF
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:52:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:36:46AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > If a function doesn't call any other functions, then it won't ever show
> > up in a stack trace unless:
> >
> > a) the function itself walks the stack, in which cas
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:36:46AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> If a function doesn't call any other functions, then it won't ever show
> up in a stack trace unless:
>
> a) the function itself walks the stack, in which case the frame pointer
>isn't necessary; or
>
> b) The function gets hit
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 08:30:52AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to try to
> > prevent it from being accidentally used for leaf functions, where it
> > isn't needed.
> >
>
> Could
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to try to
> prevent it from being accidentally used for leaf functions, where it
> isn't needed.
>
Could someone remind me why it isn't needed for leaf functions?
--Andy
--
To unsubs
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to try to prevent
> > it
> > from being accidentally used for leaf functions, where it isn't needed.
>
> Well, we could use LEAF_FUNCTION to mark that fact.
>
> Wether
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:51:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Note what the names _don't_ contain: that we generate debug info! That fact
> > is not
> > present in the naming, and that's very much intentional, because the
> > precise form
> > of debug info is con
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 a
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
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?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:42:36AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:10:19PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Actually I'm not done painting. Personally it seems a little too
> > verbose. I still like ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME_RETURN :p
>
> Let's balance it out even
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:10:19PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Actually I'm not done painting. Personally it seems a little too
> verbose. I still like ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME_RETURN :p
Let's balance it out even more:
ENTRY_FRAME(..)
...
ENDPROC_FRAME(..)
--
Regards/Gruss,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:51:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Note what the names _don't_ contain: that we generate debug info! That fact
> is not
> present in the naming, and that's very much intentional, because the precise
> form
> of debug info is conditional:
>
> - if CONFIG_FRAME_POIN
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > >> ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> > >> + FRAME
> > >> #ifndef __x86_64__
> > >> pushl KEYP
> > >
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:01:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:46:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:39:09P
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:46:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Josh Poi
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:46:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Josh Poimboeuf
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42P
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Mo
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> >
>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> >
>> >> ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
>> >> + FRAME
>> >> #ifndef __x86_64__
>> >>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> >> + FRAME
> >> #ifndef __x86_64__
> >> pushl KEYP
> >> movl 8(%esp), KEYP # ctx
>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>> ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
>> + FRAME
>> #ifndef __x86_64__
>> pushl KEYP
>> movl 8(%esp), KEYP # ctx
>> @@ -1905,6 +1907,7 @@ ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
>> #ifndef __x86_64__
>> popl K
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> + FRAME
> #ifndef __x86_64__
> pushl KEYP
> movl 8(%esp), KEYP # ctx
> @@ -1905,6 +1907,7 @@ ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> #ifndef __x86_64__
> popl KEYP
> #endif
> + ENDFRAME
> ret
> ENDPROC(aesni_set_ke
aesni-intel_asm.S has several callable non-leaf functions which don't
honor CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, which can result in bad stack traces.
Create stack frames for them when CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf
---
arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S | 19 +++
28 matches
Mail list logo
