From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: Asm & local labels for functions [was: [PATCH v8 05/28] x86/asm: annotate local pseudo-functions] Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:24:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20190828122417.GH4920@zn.tnic> References: <20190808103854.6192-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190808103854.6192-6-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190815160719.GI15313@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Slaby Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Let's start with this one: do you really want me to get rid of (local) > symbols like this? It would make backtraces completely misleading as the > unwinder would put a name of the previous function (or some garbage, > depending on unwinder) into the backtrace... Yes, while looking at your patches, I was thinking about what would be a good rule to use with which to make symbols local. I guess those which are small and not really important for stack traces like "bad_gs" in entry_64., for example. Or "relocated" in arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S, as another example. That last one you probably are never going to see in stack traces due to it being too early anyway. Or, if we think that those symbols are important for stack traces, then they should be called something more prominent, with a naming prefix or so, so that they can be assigned to the respective source easier. Am I making some sense? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:43672 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726259AbfH1MYX (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:24:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:24:17 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: Asm & local labels for functions [was: [PATCH v8 05/28] x86/asm: annotate local pseudo-functions] Message-ID: <20190828122417.GH4920@zn.tnic> References: <20190808103854.6192-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190808103854.6192-6-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190815160719.GI15313@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jiri Slaby Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190828122417.dUHec7Tjs-sWzct568O3l2VTQQ21_woEKzdnEq1tdIA@z> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Let's start with this one: do you really want me to get rid of (local) > symbols like this? It would make backtraces completely misleading as the > unwinder would put a name of the previous function (or some garbage, > depending on unwinder) into the backtrace... Yes, while looking at your patches, I was thinking about what would be a good rule to use with which to make symbols local. I guess those which are small and not really important for stack traces like "bad_gs" in entry_64., for example. Or "relocated" in arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S, as another example. That last one you probably are never going to see in stack traces due to it being too early anyway. Or, if we think that those symbols are important for stack traces, then they should be called something more prominent, with a naming prefix or so, so that they can be assigned to the respective source easier. Am I making some sense? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.