Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 May 2015 23:18:57 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jiri Kosina <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation |
| |
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Hm, alternatives do complicate things a bit. It *is* a false positive, > but not necessarily because its part of an alternative instruction > block. > > The above code would be patched into memmove(), which is a leaf function > because it doesn't call any other functions. Leaf functions don't need > frame pointer logic, so we can ignore them. > > 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.
Is this really only a problem of alternatives? How about dynamically-enabled tracepoints?
-- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
| |