> i spoted failing execution tests that expected to pass,
> it turns out change_cfi_row() needs something like
>
> - if (!old_row->window_save && new_row->window_save)
> + if (old_row->window_save != new_row->window_save)
>
> to generate .cfi_window_save that correctly tracks the
> toggled stat
ge-
> > > > > From: Szabolcs Nagy
> > > > > Sent: 09 April 2020 15:20
> > > > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > > > > Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; Richard Sandiford
> > > > > ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > >
Tkachov
Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix .cfi_window_save with pac-ret [PR94515]
On aarch64 -mbranch-protection=pac-ret reuses the dwarf
opcode for window_save to mean "toggle the return address
mangle state", but in the dwarf2cfi internal logic the
state was not properly recorded so th
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; Richard Sandiford
> > > ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix .cfi_window_save with pac-ret [PR94515]
> > >
> > > On aarch64 -mbranch-protection=pac-ret reuses the dwarf
> > > opcode for window_save to mean &q
On 4/17/20 6:08 AM, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
Hi Szabolcs,
-Original Message-
From: Szabolcs Nagy
Sent: 09 April 2020 15:20
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; Richard Sandiford
; Kyrylo Tkachov
Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix .cfi_window_save with pac-ret [PR94515]
On
Hi Szabolcs,
> -Original Message-
> From: Szabolcs Nagy
> Sent: 09 April 2020 15:20
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw ; Richard Sandiford
> ; Kyrylo Tkachov
> Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Fix .cfi_window_save with pac-ret [PR94515]
>
> On aarc
On aarch64 -mbranch-protection=pac-ret reuses the dwarf
opcode for window_save to mean "toggle the return address
mangle state", but in the dwarf2cfi internal logic the
state was not properly recorded so the remember/restore
logic was broken.
This can cause the unwinder not to authenticate return
