On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:09 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>subq $(5*8), %rsp
> >> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 5*8
> >>
> >>CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
> >> end_repeat_nmi:
> >>
> >
> > Is that second one even needed? Or will the CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
> > fix it?
>
> Yes it will
>>> On 02.11.12 at 14:53, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> > There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
>> > don't see what help would be required here -
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
> > don't see what help would be required here - it ought to be the normal use
> > of
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
> don't see what help would be required here - it ought to be the normal use
> of CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET that needs adding.
This change look fine to you?
diff --git
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
don't see what help would be required here - it ought to be the normal use
of CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET that needs adding.
This change look fine to you?
diff --git
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
don't see what help would be required here - it ought to be the normal use
of CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET that
On 02.11.12 at 14:53, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
don't see what help would be required
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:09 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
subq $(5*8), %rsp
+ CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 5*8
CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
end_repeat_nmi:
Is that second one even needed? Or will the CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
fix it?
Yes it will (as long as no intervening
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Steven Rostedt 11/01/12 2:04 AM >>>
> >On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:29 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
> >> @@ -1826,12 +1832,15 @@ repeat_nmi:
> >> * is benign for the non-repeat case, where 1 was pushed just above
> >> * to this very
>>> Steven Rostedt 11/01/12 2:04 AM >>>
>On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:29 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
>> @@ -1826,12 +1832,15 @@ repeat_nmi:
>> * is benign for the non-repeat case, where 1 was pushed just above
>> * to this very stack slot).
>> */
>> -movq $1, 5*8(%rsp)
>> +
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org 11/01/12 2:04 AM
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:29 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
@@ -1826,12 +1832,15 @@ repeat_nmi:
* is benign for the non-repeat case, where 1 was pushed just above
* to this very stack slot).
*/
-movq $1, 5*8(%rsp)
+
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org 11/01/12 2:04 AM
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:29 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
@@ -1826,12 +1832,15 @@ repeat_nmi:
* is benign for the non-repeat case, where 1 was pushed just above
* to this
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:29 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
> The nested NMI modifies the place (instruction, flags and stack)
> that the first NMI will iret to. However, the copy of registers
> modified is exactly the one that is the part of pt_regs in
> the first NMI. This can change the behaviour
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 17:29 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
The nested NMI modifies the place (instruction, flags and stack)
that the first NMI will iret to. However, the copy of registers
modified is exactly the one that is the part of pt_regs in
the first NMI. This can change the behaviour of
The nested NMI modifies the place (instruction, flags and stack)
that the first NMI will iret to. However, the copy of registers
modified is exactly the one that is the part of pt_regs in
the first NMI. This can change the behaviour of the first NMI.
In particular, Google's
The nested NMI modifies the place (instruction, flags and stack)
that the first NMI will iret to. However, the copy of registers
modified is exactly the one that is the part of pt_regs in
the first NMI. This can change the behaviour of the first NMI.
In particular, Google's
16 matches
Mail list logo
