On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Jun 10, 2015 5:07 AM, "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add a new CONFIG_ASM_VALIDATION option which adds an asmvalidate host > > tool which runs on every compiled .S file. Its goal is to enforce sane > > rules on all asm code, so that stack debug metadata (frame/back chain > > pointers and/or DWARF CFI metadata) can be made reliable. > > > > It enforces the following rules: > > > > 1. Each callable function must be annotated with the ELF STT_FUNC type. > > This is typically done using the ENTRY/ENDPROC macros. If > > asmvalidate finds a return instruction outside of a function, it > > flags an error, since that usually indicates callable code which > > should be annotated accordingly. > > > > 2. Each callable function must never leave its own bounds (i.e. with a > > jump to outside the function) except when returning. > > Won't that break with sibling/tail calls? Yes, asmvalidate will flag a warning for tail calls. > GCC can generate those, and the ia32_ptregs_common label is an example > of such a thing. > > I'd rather have the script understand tail calls and possibly require > that ia32_ptregs_common have a dummy frame pointer save in front > before the label if needed. Why do you prefer tail calls there? See patch 3 for how I handled that for ia32_ptregs_common (I duplicated the code with macros). I think adding support for tail calls in the tooling would be tricky. So I'm just trying to figure out if there's a good reason to keep them. -- Josh -- 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