>>> Well, someone used that macro in a .fixup section, where the
>>> CFI adjustments do not seem to work. But since I don't know
>>> why this was done (Jan?), I reverted that to my original code and
>>> added the adjustments now.
>> The macro in question is UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK, which is used in
exactly
>No, that was about FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK in fact.
>
>> Even more, the macro itself switches to .fixup,
>... where it uses FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK. I haven't done that.
>Someone else added the .fixup section to UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK,
>and so the FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK became used in that section.
>I removed that now with my patch, unless someone can tell
>me why it was needed.
That was me, in order to get the unwind annotations right without
complicating the code too much. Again, FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK doesn't
use any unwind directives so can be used anywhere, including the
.fixup section UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK switches to.
Jan
-
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]
