A while back there was a post that CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER doesn't affect
calling conventions and doesn't need to be in vermagic.
One of my coworkers seems to think otherwise, and I don't know enough
about the issue to know for sure. Could someone with i386 knowledge
comment on his thoughts?
Here's what he's currently thinking:
1) regs->ebp hold a copy of the stack frame pointer. It's value is
conserved through any function that are compiled with FRAME_POINTER on.
2) (unsigned long *)(regs->ebp + 4) is the "pc" of the caller (like the
link register on PPC which is relative to "fp")
3) The profile_pc function usually look directly at "pc" to do it's
profiling magic but sometimes (when the current "pc" is inside a
lock_function, we're SMP, and CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled) it uses
"regs->ebp+4" to be more accurate on the profiling. In other word
profile_pc doesn't want to create a profiling entry that would show
redundant information about being stuck into a spin_lock...
So, if the kernel was built with SMP and FRAME_POINTER, a module wasn't,
the module used ebp as a general register, then blocked in a spinlock
when profile_pc started...then a regs->ebp value of something
interesting (like "0", for instance) could cause interesting behaviour.
Seems reasonable to me, but like I said, I'm not an expert on i386.
Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
