Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752102AbbGRVCU (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:02:20 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:33027 "EHLO mail-wg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750809AbbGRVCT (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:02:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:02:17 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S From: Gustavo da Silva To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1001 Lines: 31 Hi, brothers. I was reading the e-mails about the topic, and I have a simple suggestion: FRAMED_FUNCTION_ENTRYPOINT(xyz) ... FRAMED_FUNCTION_RETPOINT(xyz) -- Atenciosamente, Gustavo da Silva. (Brazil) > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:25:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 08:46:55AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > I like the balance, but the "ret" is still non-obvious. > > > > Does it have to be obvious? > > I feel that making "ret" obvious is better. > > But if somebody messes up and adds a second "ret", I suppose > stackvalidate would warn about the fact that it returned without > restoring the frame pointer. So if there are no other objections, your > suggestion of ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME is fine with me. -- 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/