From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com>
Cc: prasanna@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [1/3] kprobes-func-args-268-rc3.patch
Date: 5 Aug 2004 14:54:23 +0200
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:54:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040805125423.GA63682@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040805122431.GA4411@in.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 05:54:31PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > I think you misunderstood Linus' suggestion. The problem with
> > modifying arguments on the stack frame is always there because the C
> > ABI allows it. One suggested solution was to use a second function
>
> I did realise that it is the ABI which allows this, but I thought
> that the only situation in which we know gcc to actually clobber
> arguments from the callee in practice is for tailcall optimization.
It just breaks the most common workaround.
> I'm not sure if that can be guaranteed and yes saving bytes from
> stack would avoid the problem totally (hence the comment) and make
> it less tied to expected innards of the compiler. The only issue
> with that is deciding the maximum number of arguments so it is
> generic enough.
64bytes, aka 16 arguments seem far enough.
> > call that passes the arguments again to get a private copy. But the
> > compiler's tail call optimization could sabotate that when you a
> > are not careful.
> >
> > That's all quite hackish and compiler dependent. I would suggest an
> > assembly wrapper that copies the arguments when !CONFIG_REGPARM.
> > Just assume the function doesn't have more than a fixed number
> > of arguments, that should be good enough.
> >
> > This way you avoid any subtle compiler dependencies.
> > With CONFIG_REGPARM it's enough to just save/restore pt_regs,
> > which kprobes will do anyways.
> > >
>
> Even with CONFIG_REGPARM, if you have a large
> number of arguments for example, is spill over into stack
> a possibility ?
Yes. For more than three (Linux uses -mregparm=3)
Also varargs arguments will be always on the stack I think.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-05 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <2pMJz-13N-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-08-05 11:09 ` [1/3] kprobes-func-args-268-rc3.patch Andi Kleen
2004-08-05 12:24 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2004-08-05 12:54 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2004-08-05 13:33 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2004-08-05 13:51 ` Andi Kleen
2004-08-05 15:05 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2004-08-05 9:24 Prasanna S Panchamukhi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040805125423.GA63682@muc.de \
--to=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prasanna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=suparna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox