Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s

[Jan Beulich]

>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 11/04/14 8:40 PM >>>
>On 11/04/2014 01:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The main obstacle to having done this long ago was the need to
>> determine whether annotations are needed in the first place: They need
>> to be avoided when a frame pointer got set up. Since I can't see a way
>> to determine this before the compilation phase, this is being achieved
>> by inspecting the memory address generated by the compiler in an
>> interposed assembler macro. Of course this isn't really nice code, and
>> this the main reason I'm posting this as RFC only at this point (with
>> the hope that maybe someone has an idea of how to achieve the same
>> thing in a more elegant way).
>
>Ask binutils for help?

Binutils know as little about the code the compiler generated as we do.

>Is the issue that the CFI annotation you need is different depending on
>whether there's a frame pointer or not?

No - as said above, they need to be avoided altogether when there's a
frame pointer.

> If so, can you add some
>comments so that mere asm mortals have some prayer of understanding how
>your magic works and what the desired output annotations are in the
>various cases?

Honestly I have a hard time seeing where comments would help here. Plus
the difficult part isn't how the annotations look like, but (see above) simply
whether to emit them at all.

Jan


--
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/