On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:12:42PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On 26 October 2018 at 16:21, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > @@ -162,6 +165,114 @@ ftrace_graph_call://
> > ftrace_graph_cal
> >
> > mcount_exit
> > ENDPROC(ftrace_caller)
> > +#else /*
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:12:42PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On 26 October 2018 at 16:21, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > @@ -162,6 +165,114 @@ ftrace_graph_call://
> > ftrace_graph_cal
> >
> > mcount_exit
> > ENDPROC(ftrace_caller)
> > +#else /*
Hi Torsten,
On 26 October 2018 at 16:21, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
> of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
> saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
> to ftrace,
Hi Torsten,
On 26 October 2018 at 16:21, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
> of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
> saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
> to ftrace,
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:18:19 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:19:07PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Other architectures do rely on that. That's exactly for example why
> > on x86 we use '-pg -mfentry', to make sure we hook the function
> > *before* prologue.
>
> Ah, I'd
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:18:19 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:19:07PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Other architectures do rely on that. That's exactly for example why
> > on x86 we use '-pg -mfentry', to make sure we hook the function
> > *before* prologue.
>
> Ah, I'd
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:19:07PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > I guess skipping the original function prologue would simplify the
> > implementation of the replacement function (and would mean that the regs
> > held the function arguments per the
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:19:07PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > I guess skipping the original function prologue would simplify the
> > implementation of the replacement function (and would mean that the regs
> > held the function arguments per the
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I guess skipping the original function prologue would simplify the
> implementation of the replacement function (and would mean that the regs
> held the function arguments per the procedure call standard), but AFAICT
> other architectures aren't relying
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I guess skipping the original function prologue would simplify the
> implementation of the replacement function (and would mean that the regs
> held the function arguments per the procedure call standard), but AFAICT
> other architectures aren't relying
Hi Torsten,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 04:21:48PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
> of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
> saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
> to
Hi Torsten,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 04:21:48PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
> of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
> saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
> to
Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
to ftrace, does not clobber the value. Ftrace will then generate the
standard stack
Use -fpatchable-function-entry (gcc8) to add 2 NOPs at the beginning
of each function. Replace the first NOP thus generated with a quick LR
saver (move it to scratch reg x9), so the 2nd replacement insn, the call
to ftrace, does not clobber the value. Ftrace will then generate the
standard stack
14 matches
Mail list logo
