From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757788AbbEWIil (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 23 May 2015 04:38:41 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:35915 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755039AbbEWIii (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 23 May 2015 04:38:38 -0400
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 10:37:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        x86@kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation
Message-ID: <20150523083748.GA12707@nazgul.tnic>
References: <cover.1431966710.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20150520103339.GA22205@gmail.com>
 <20150520141331.GA16995@treble.redhat.com>
 <20150520144810.GA10374@gmail.com>
 <20150521205425.GA31662@treble.redhat.com>
 <20150521220158.GH3689@pd.tnic>
 <20150522143212.GB20555@treble.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150522143212.GB20555@treble.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 09:32:12AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> If instead the above code were patched into a non-leaf function, we'd
> have to change it to restore the frame pointer before returning.

Not a problem, I think. One'll need to add the FP restoring before the
retq.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--