Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1187501 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Gustavo da Silva <gustavodasilva@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-18 23:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-07-18 23:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S Gustavo da Silva <gustavodasilva@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 23:10 +0200
| From | Gustavo da Silva <gustavodasilva@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-18 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S |
| Message-ID | <pNHwR-7gU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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 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 adds a second "ret", I suppose > stackvalidate would warn about the fact that it returned without > restoring the frame pointer. So if there are no other objections, your > suggestion of ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME is fine with me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web