Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>  ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> >> >> +     FRAME
> >> >>  #ifndef __x86_64__
> >> >>       pushl KEYP
> >> >>       movl 8(%esp), KEYP              # ctx
> >> >> @@ -1905,6 +1907,7 @@ ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> >> >>  #ifndef __x86_64__
> >> >>       popl KEYP
> >> >>  #endif
> >> >> +     ENDFRAME
> >> >>       ret
> >> >>  ENDPROC(aesni_set_key)
> >> >
> >> > So cannot we make this a bit more compact and less fragile?
> >> >
> >> > Instead of:
> >> >
> >> >         ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> >> >                 FRAME
> >> >         ...
> >> >                 ENDFRAME
> >> >                 ret
> >> >         ENDPROC(aesni_set_key)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How about writing this as:
> >> >
> >> >         FUNCTION_ENTRY(aesni_set_key)
> >> >         ...
> >> >         FUNCTION_RETURN(aesni_set_key)
> >> >
> >> > which does the same thing in a short, symmetric construct?
> >> >
> >> > One potential problem with this approach would be that what 'looks' like an entry
> >> > declaration, but it will now generate real code.
> >> >
> >> > OTOH if people find this intuitive enough then it's a lot harder to mess it up,
> >> > and I think 'RETURN' makes it clear enough that there's a real instruction
> >> > generated there.
> >> >
> >>
> >> How about FUNCTION_PROLOGUE and FUNCTION_EPILOGUE?
> >
> > Perhaps the macro name should describe what the epilogue does, since
> > frame pointers aren't required for _all_ functions, only those which
> > don't have call instructions.
> >
> > What do you think about ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME_RETURN?  The
> > ending macro is kind of long, but at least it a) matches the existing
> > ENTRY/ENDPROC convention for asm functions; b) gives a clue that frame
> > pointers are involved; and c) lets you know that the return is there.
> >
> 
> This really is about frame pointers, right?  How about
> ENTRY_FRAMEPTR_xyz where xyz can be prologue, epilogue, return,
> whatever?

Wouldn't the "ENTRY" in ENTRY_FRAMEPTR_RETURN be confusing at the end of
a function?

-- 
Josh