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

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So no. A very strong NACK. The code was too ugly to live, there is no good
> stated reason for it, and the only reason I can even remotely imagine is
> wrong and complete crap anyway (ie making the CFI annotations a correctness
> issue by introducing other infrastructure that depends on it always being
> right).

Btw, the sane thing to do is to make your infrastructure just say "If
my frame walker hits a push/pop without CFI information, I'll just add
it myself".

Yes, that involved having to actuall ylook at the instruction. Tough
shit. Just do it right. There aren't that many push/pop patterns.
Don't make the kernel more fragile by introducing these kinds of hacky
macros-from-hell.

Improve the debugger, don't make kernel code worse because your
out-of-tree debugging infrastructure is too broken to live.

                      Linus
--
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/