Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933941AbbFJU0k (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:26:40 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37632 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752277AbbFJU0b (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:26:31 -0400
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:26:29 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] x86/asm: Compile-time asm code validation
Message-ID: <20150610202629.GE1125@treble.redhat.com>
References: <cover.1433937132.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <CALCETrVQ2pX8dDrHgnymZjTe=dpGsoaNA=XGpAVV7J=ON+U7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVQ2pX8dDrHgnymZjTe=dpGsoaNA=XGpAVV7J=ON+U7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1550
Lines: 38

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:24:05AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Slightly off-topic, but this reminds me: when writing inline asm that
> needs to push to the stack (for whatever reason), it's incredibly
> messy to get the annotations right -- they're different depending on
> whether the previous frame base (is that what "CFA" is?) is currently
> sp + constant, in which case we need an annotation adjusting the
> constant or whether it's independent of sp (bp + constant), in which
> case we shouldn't adjust the offset.  (If it's some other function of
> sp, we're screwed.)
> 
> Regardless of whether these types of annotations end up being done by
> hand or by script, should we consider asking the binutils people to
> give us some nice .cfi_adjust_for_push and .cfi_adjust_for_pop or
> similar directives?

Hm, that's a tough one.  Might be worth asking...

Another alternative would be to ask gcc to make a change to always setup
the frame pointer for any function which has inline assembly, so that
you know (hopefully) that CFA is based on bp.

Or, maybe there's already a way to force gcc to do that with the asm
directive somehow?

> 
> See here for Jan Beulich's solution, which is incomprehensible to me:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1820765

<brain explodes>

-- 
Josh
--
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/