Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:10:01 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > So no. A very strong NACK. The code was too ugly to live, there is no good > stated reason for it, and the only reason I can even remotely imagine is > wrong and complete crap anyway (ie making the CFI annotations a correctness > issue by introducing other infrastructure that depends on it always being > right).
Btw, the sane thing to do is to make your infrastructure just say "If my frame walker hits a push/pop without CFI information, I'll just add it myself".
Yes, that involved having to actuall ylook at the instruction. Tough shit. Just do it right. There aren't that many push/pop patterns. Don't make the kernel more fragile by introducing these kinds of hacky macros-from-hell.
Improve the debugger, don't make kernel code worse because your out-of-tree debugging infrastructure is too broken to live.
Linus
| |