Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt_regs on irq entry

Jan Beulich
2011-01-06T16:58:59Z

>>> On 06.01.11 at 17:54, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:39:39PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.01.11 at 17:22, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:10:55PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 06.01.11 at 16:45, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Before we had:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > leaveq
>> >> >
>> >> > CFI_RESTORE rbp
>> >> > CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER rsp
>> >> > CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -8
>> >> >
>> >> > So CFI_RESTORE means rbp has now the value of the base frame of
>> >> > the calling frame (the base frame pointer of the interrupted proc) ?
>> >>
>> >> No - all it means is that %rbp now has its original (caller or
>> >> interrupted procedure) value again (i.e. an unwinder should not
>> >> try to read it from the stack [or other previously recorded
>> >> location] anymore).
>> >>
>> >> > And what follows means that rsp-8 points to the return address?
>> >>
>> >> No - .cfi_def_cfa_register says which register serves as the frame
>> >> pointer, and .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset says to adjust the offset from
>> >> the frame pointer to the top [or bottom] of frame. At any time
>> >>
>> >> CFA = cfa_register + cfa_offset
>> >>
>> >> with CFA being what all locations on the stack are expressed
>> >> relative to.
>> >
>> > Ok.
>> >
>> > So here rsp points to pt_regs::r11
>> >
>> > I don't understand why locations relative to the stack must be
>> > expressed here by taking rsp - 8 as a base.
>>
>> Nothing says rsp-8. The annotations merely say to set the base
>> register to rsp and to *adjust* the offset by -8 (after all, that's
>> what the leaveq instruction does).
>
> Ah! So CFA acts like a virtual frame base pointer right?

Correct.