From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 10:08:50 -0700 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions In-Reply-To: <20190507163440.GV2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20190506215353.14a8ef78@oasis.local.home> <20190506225819.11756974@oasis.local.home> <20190506232158.13c9123b@oasis.local.home> <20190507111227.1d4268d7@gandalf.local.home> <20190507163440.GV2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190507170850.o8JPQUBBr8_6xCA57JJC3W4fE7LgVD9VPEQY4hXq7tg@z> On Tue, May 7, 2019@9:34 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Would you consider my approach later on, under the guise of unification? WHY? The *only* advantage of your patch is that trivial "look up kernel stack" macro. Seriously. There's absolutely nothing else. Is that macro ugly? Yes. But it's directly explainable by just pointing to the architecture documentation. It's a one-liner hack. And for that, you want to complicate the x86-32 entry and exit code? Do we have different emulation for "push" on 32-bit and 64-bit? Yes. But again, that's just how the hardware works. This is not some "generic hw-independent code". This is literally emulating instructions that care about instruction encoding and bit size details, where there are certainly _similarities_ (and in the case of 'call', they look bit-identical), but it's also not like "same code" is a big argument. That's why we have a helper function, to hide the details. I point to my diffstat once again. It's smaller, and I argue that it is actually conceptually *simpler* to simply say "this is how the architecture works". And yes, I realize that I may be biased by the fact that I simply know i386 so well, so to me it simply makes more sense to just work with what the hardware gives us. The i386 exception model with the kernel stack nesting is a *hell* of a lot simpler than the x86-64 one. The fact is, x86-64 messed things up, and swapgs and friends are an abomination against God. So the whole "let's clean up x86-32 to look like x86-64, which got things right" is to me a completely bogus argument. x86-64 got the "yes, push ss/sp unconditionally" part right, but got a lot of other things horribly wrong. So this is all just one small detail that differs, across two architectures that are similar but have very different warts. But that diffstat is still hard, cold, unbiased data. Linus