Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 22 May 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> Hm, alternatives do complicate things a bit.  It *is* a false positive,
> but not necessarily because its part of an alternative instruction
> block.
> 
> The above code would be patched into memmove(), which is a leaf function
> because it doesn't call any other functions.  Leaf functions don't need
> frame pointer logic, so we can ignore them.
> 
> If instead the above code were patched into a non-leaf function, we'd
> have to change it to restore the frame pointer before returning.

Is this really only a problem of alternatives? How about 
dynamically-enabled tracepoints?

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/