From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752777AbbALThL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:37:11 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:37285 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750921AbbALThJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:37:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:37:04 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Denys Vlasenko , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Frederic Weisbecker , X86 ML , Alexei Starovoitov , Will Drewry , Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce push/pop macros which generate CFI_REL_OFFSET and CFI_RESTORE Message-ID: <20150112193704.GG3904@pd.tnic> References: <1421017655-25561-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> <20150112192314.GF3904@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andy, please trim your replies. On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:25:39AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I think that some users don't want the CFI_REL_OFFSET. Why? I thought those two annotations are independent? As you said: "IOW, one is to keep the stack frame tracking consistent and the other is to tell the unwinder about the register we just saved." Sounds to me like we want both... -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --