From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 00:20:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181110232059.GA12766@worktop.psav.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu-3OfrgGafO3OY3hAir723tD6shEaWTLJ5Ec4YcW4yZyQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> >> x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> >> everywhere else. I may experiment with a GCC plugin instead.
> >
> > I'd prefer the objtool approach. It's a pretty reliable first-principles
> > approach while GCC plugin would have to be replicated for Clang and any
> > other compilers, etc.
> >
>
> I implemented the GCC plugin approach here for arm64
I'm confused; I though we only needed objtool for variable instruction
length architectures, because we can't reliably decode our instruction
stream. Otherwise we can fairly trivially use the DWARF relocation data,
no?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-10 23:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-08 21:15 [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-08 21:15 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] static_call: Add static call infrastructure Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 9:51 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 14:55 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 13:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 15:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 15:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 17:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 17:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 17:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 17:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 17:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 17:53 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 19:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 19:12 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 17:33 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 18:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-09 19:35 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 19:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-09 20:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-10 5:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-10 11:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-10 13:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-12 3:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-12 4:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-12 4:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-12 5:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-10 11:56 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-08 21:15 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/static_call: Add x86 unoptimized static call implementation Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-08 21:15 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/static_call: Add optimized static call implementation for 64-bit Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-08 21:24 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 7:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-11-09 7:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-11-09 13:50 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-09 15:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-10 23:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-11-11 13:42 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-11 14:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-09 14:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-12 5:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-11-12 5:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-12 9:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-12 22:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-12 17:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-12 22:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-12 5:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-09 15:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-09 15:21 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 16:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 18:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-09 19:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-09 19:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-09 19:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-09 19:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-09 20:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-10 15:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-11-09 20:53 ` Rasmus Villemoes
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=20181110232059.GA12766@worktop.psav.com \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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