Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt_regs on irq entry

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:39:39PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.01.11 at 17:22, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:10:55PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 06.01.11 at 16:45, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Before we had:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 	leaveq
> >> > 
> >> > 	CFI_RESTORE             rbp
> >> > 	CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER    rsp
> >> > 	CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET   -8
> >> > 
> >> > So CFI_RESTORE means rbp has now the value of the base frame of
> >> > the calling frame (the base frame pointer of the interrupted proc) ?
> >> 
> >> No - all it means is that %rbp now has its original (caller or
> >> interrupted procedure) value again (i.e. an unwinder should not
> >> try to read it from the stack [or other previously recorded
> >> location] anymore).
> >> 
> >> > And what follows means that rsp-8 points to the return address?
> >> 
> >> No - .cfi_def_cfa_register says which register serves as the frame
> >> pointer, and .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset says to adjust the offset from
> >> the frame pointer to the top [or bottom] of frame. At any time
> >> 
> >> 	CFA = cfa_register + cfa_offset
> >> 
> >> with CFA being what all locations on the stack are expressed
> >> relative to.
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > So here rsp points to pt_regs::r11
> > 
> > I don't understand why locations relative to the stack must be
> > expressed here by taking rsp - 8 as a base.
> 
> Nothing says rsp-8. The annotations merely say to set the base
> register to rsp and to *adjust* the offset by -8 (after all, that's
> what the leaveq instruction does).

Ah! So CFA acts like a virtual frame base pointer right?
--
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/