On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > index f45acad..29fa417 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > @@ -4,8 +4,10 @@
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER
> >
(2015/01/14 7:47), Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>>> In any case, Masami, I really think you would like to do something
>>> like that for IPMODIFY as well ... or are you deliberately defering
>>> the responsibility to handle the possible mcount fallout to th
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:47:57 +0100 (CET)
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> From: Jiri Kosina
> Subject: [PATCH] ftrace: don't allow IPMODIFY without proper compiler
> support
>
> Using IPMODIFY needs to be allowed only with compilers which are
> guaranteed to generate function prologues compatible with func
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > In any case, Masami, I really think you would like to do something
> > like that for IPMODIFY as well ... or are you deliberately defering
> > the responsibility to handle the possible mcount fallout to the
> > ftrace_ops owner?
>
> Ah, good poi
(2015/01/08 9:11), Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>>> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
>>> @@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ static int klp_init(void)
>>> {
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> + ret = klp_check_compiler_support();
>>> + if (ret) {
>>>
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > @@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ static int klp_init(void)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > + ret = klp_check_compiler_support();
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_info("Your compiler is too
On Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:34 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 01:11:03 +0100 (CET) Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > > > @@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ static int klp_init(
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 01:11:03 +0100 (CET) Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > > @@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ static int klp_init(void)
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > + ret = klp_check_compiler_
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > @@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ static int klp_init(void)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > + ret = klp_check_compiler_support();
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_info("Your compiler is too
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 00:49:49 +0100 (CET) Jiri Kosina wrote:
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ static int klp_init(void)
> {
> int ret;
>
> + ret = klp_check_compiler_support();
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_info("Your compil
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please find a way to fix it. Copying CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is one way.
Hmm ... is that actually really a good example?
I think it will warn (explicitly from the top-level Makefile so that you
are aware why the things that will follow are happening
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 00:01:02 +0100 (CET) Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > OK, I have added this from today
> >
> > My x86_64 allmodconfig broke.
> >
> > In file included from include/linux/livepatch.h:29,
> > from kernel/livepatch/core.c:30:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > OK, I have added this from today
>
> My x86_64 allmodconfig broke.
>
> In file included from include/linux/livepatch.h:29,
> from kernel/livepatch/core.c:30:
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/livepatch.h:29:2: error: #error Your compiler must
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:56:13 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
> OK, I have added this from today
My x86_64 allmodconfig broke.
In file included from include/linux/livepatch.h:29,
from kernel/livepatch/core.c:30:
./arch/x86/include/asm/livepatch.h:29:2: error: #error Your compiler
Hi Jiri,
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:10:56 -0600 Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 01:46:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 08:52:02PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > >
> > > a substantial amount of work has been invested into abstracing "Live
> > > Patchi
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 01:46:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 08:52:02PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > a substantial amount of work has been invested into abstracing "Live
> > Patching" core functionality out of the already existing implementatio
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 08:52:02PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> a substantial amount of work has been invested into abstracing "Live
> Patching" core functionality out of the already existing implementations,
> so that further improvements can be built on top of it in incremental
Hi Stephen,
a substantial amount of work has been invested into abstracing "Live
Patching" core functionality out of the already existing implementations,
so that further improvements can be built on top of it in incremental
steps.
The core functionality (which is self-contained) now works and
18 matches
Mail list logo
