[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] x86/elf: Remove ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT from elf_core_save_regs()


  • To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:00:53 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:00:59 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 25.03.2025 19:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> I was mistaken about when ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT is applicable.  It is not
> applicable for plain pushes/pops, so remove it from the flags logic.
> 
> Clarify the description of ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT to be explicit about unwinding
> using framepointers.
> 
> Fixes: 0754534b8a38 ("x86/elf: Improve code generation in 
> elf_core_save_regs()")
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  xen/arch/x86/include/asm/asm_defns.h  | 5 +++--
>  xen/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_64/elf.h | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/asm_defns.h 
> b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/asm_defns.h
> index 92b4116a1564..689d1dcbf754 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/asm_defns.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/asm_defns.h
> @@ -28,8 +28,9 @@ asm ( "\t.equ CONFIG_INDIRECT_THUNK, "
>  
>  /*
>   * This output constraint should be used for any inline asm which has a 
> "call"
> - * instruction.  Otherwise the asm may be inserted before the frame pointer
> - * gets set up by the containing function.
> + * instruction, which forces the stack frame to be set up prior to the asm
> + * block.  This matters when unwinding using framepointers, where the asm's
> + * function can get skipped over.

Does "forces the stack frame to be set up" really mean the stack frame, or the
frame pointer (if one is in use)? In the latter case I can see how the asm()
being moved ahead of that point could cause problems. In the former case I
apparently still don't understand (yet) what the issue is that
ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT ultimately is to help with.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.