Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation

Jiri Kosina
2015-05-22T21:19:09Z

On Fri, 22 May 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> Hm, alternatives do complicate things a bit. It *is* a false positive,
> but not necessarily because its part of an alternative instruction
> block.
>
> The above code would be patched into memmove(), which is a leaf function
> because it doesn't call any other functions. Leaf functions don't need
> frame pointer logic, so we can ignore them.
>
> If instead the above code were patched into a non-leaf function, we'd
> have to change it to restore the frame pointer before returning.

Is this really only a problem of alternatives? How about
dynamically-enabled tracepoints?

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs