From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756713AbZBKO7B (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:59:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754700AbZBKO6x (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:58:53 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34326 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752546AbZBKO6w (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:58:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:58:48 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Tejun Heo Cc: Brian Gerst , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it Message-ID: <20090211145848.GC10525@elte.hu> References: <1234277507-4987-1-git-send-email-brgerst@gmail.com> <1234277507-4987-3-git-send-email-brgerst@gmail.com> <4992812B.1050800@kernel.org> <73c1f2160902110631j68e58202h3e49288cfe613d66@mail.gmail.com> <4992E396.6000205@kernel.org> <4992E551.4060901@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4992E551.4060901@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Tejun Heo wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: > >> I checked the disassembly of these functions and didn't see this > >> happen on gcc 4.3.0. > > > > Well, tracking down why run_init_process() is returning 0 with > > -fstack-protector wasn't much of fun. These breakages are very subtle > > and if we're gonna pass in pointer to pt_regs anyway and thus can > > guarantee such breakage can't happen at no additional cost, I think we > > should do that even if it means slightly more argument fetching in a > > few places. > > In addition, if we do that, we can remove the horrible > asmlinkage_protect() thing altogether. Agreed. Ingo