Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread Luck, Tony
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:28:52PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 January 2016 at 20:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I suspect that means we will also need to go back to arch-specific > > sorting for x86. > > > > AFAICT, Tony's patches are not incompatible with mine. The fixup > address is off

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 4 January 2016 at 20:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/04/2016 10:20 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> May I humbly ask why the [Finnish] you don't use the equivalent of the >>> x86 _ASM_EXTABLE() macro? In fact, why don't we make that one generic, too? >> >> I'm messing with that right now (with help

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 01/04/2016 10:20 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >> May I humbly ask why the [Finnish] you don't use the equivalent of the >> x86 _ASM_EXTABLE() macro? In fact, why don't we make that one generic, too? > > I'm messing with that right now (with help from Andy Lutomirski and Boris) to > add different clas

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 01/04/2016 10:20 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >> May I humbly ask why the [Finnish] you don't use the equivalent of the >> x86 _ASM_EXTABLE() macro? In fact, why don't we make that one generic, too? > > I'm messing with that right now (with help from Andy Lutomirski and Boris) to > add different clas

RE: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread Luck, Tony
> May I humbly ask why the [Finnish] you don't use the equivalent of the > x86 _ASM_EXTABLE() macro? In fact, why don't we make that one generic, too? I'm messing with that right now (with help from Andy Lutomirski and Boris) to add different classes of exception table (so I can tag some instruct

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 01/04/2016 06:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 05:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Instead of using absolute addresses for both the exception location >> and the fixup, use offsets relative to the exception table entry values. >> Not only does this cut the size of the e

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables

2016-01-04 Thread Will Deacon
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 05:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Instead of using absolute addresses for both the exception location > and the fixup, use offsets relative to the exception table entry values. > Not only does this cut the size of the exception table in half, it is > also a prerequis