On Fri, 22 May 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Hm, alternatives do complicate things a bit. It *is* a false positive, > but not necessarily because its part of an alternative instruction > block. > > The above code would be patched into memmove(), which is a leaf function > because it doesn't call any other functions. Leaf functions don't need > frame pointer logic, so we can ignore them. > > If instead the above code were patched into a non-leaf function, we'd > have to change it to restore the frame pointer before returning. Is this really only a problem of alternatives? How about dynamically-enabled tracepoints? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
