From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz at infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 18:34:40 +0200 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions In-Reply-To: References: <20190506215353.14a8ef78@oasis.local.home> <20190506225819.11756974@oasis.local.home> <20190506232158.13c9123b@oasis.local.home> <20190507111227.1d4268d7@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: <20190507163440.GV2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 08:31:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The reality is that changing something fundamental like the kernel > stack at this point for an architecture that will not change in the > future is silly. In my eyes it makes sense because i386 is a minority architecture at this point, and 'nobody' wants to care about how its different if they don't have to. > The reality is that Peter's patch is much bigger than mine, because it > needed a lot of other changes *because* it did that change. Yes, I change the way stack layout works on i386, and yes that affects a lot of code. _However_ all of that code is now more like x86_64 than it was. Earlier you said that kernel_stack_pointer() was a horrible thing; and most/all the code that I ended up touching was similarly horrible. Would you consider my approach later on, under the guise of unification? We can work on it for a while, and make sure all the iffy bits are sorted, no need to rush? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 18:34:40 +0200 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions In-Reply-To: References: <20190506215353.14a8ef78@oasis.local.home> <20190506225819.11756974@oasis.local.home> <20190506232158.13c9123b@oasis.local.home> <20190507111227.1d4268d7@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: <20190507163440.GV2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190507163440.V7r8qpIqYit7Q_kyfg6NVsr48U65P5dfxFAFV9362GQ@z> On Tue, May 07, 2019@08:31:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The reality is that changing something fundamental like the kernel > stack at this point for an architecture that will not change in the > future is silly. In my eyes it makes sense because i386 is a minority architecture at this point, and 'nobody' wants to care about how its different if they don't have to. > The reality is that Peter's patch is much bigger than mine, because it > needed a lot of other changes *because* it did that change. Yes, I change the way stack layout works on i386, and yes that affects a lot of code. _However_ all of that code is now more like x86_64 than it was. Earlier you said that kernel_stack_pointer() was a horrible thing; and most/all the code that I ended up touching was similarly horrible. Would you consider my approach later on, under the guise of unification? We can work on it for a while, and make sure all the iffy bits are sorted, no need to rush?