From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757053AbZBKOtS (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754240AbZBKOtI (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:08 -0500 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.186]:17936 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750808AbZBKOtF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:05 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=IUrXRlp0rlIaDYY2SgMZ4VW84PaYlQeCphN+vqF7UW2T+DnHZ7s8gMH0h1t/Z7I50v EvyauOhPEAJtrMAw0dRptGnGqY3JAgYpb06ObpVv0WnpxAmnDKyi7JhnzE2lf0Jqq2Bq ZioqGeSqtAMZjWyQXYwrFXZPMpN0De9th76LM= Message-ID: <4992E551.4060901@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:48:49 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Gerst CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it References: <1234277507-4987-1-git-send-email-brgerst@gmail.com> <1234277507-4987-3-git-send-email-brgerst@gmail.com> <4992812B.1050800@kernel.org> <73c1f2160902110631j68e58202h3e49288cfe613d66@mail.gmail.com> <4992E396.6000205@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4992E396.6000205@kernel.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: >> I checked the disassembly of these functions and didn't see this >> happen on gcc 4.3.0. > > Well, tracking down why run_init_process() is returning 0 with > -fstack-protector wasn't much of fun. These breakages are very subtle > and if we're gonna pass in pointer to pt_regs anyway and thus can > guarantee such breakage can't happen at no additional cost, I think we > should do that even if it means slightly more argument fetching in a > few places. In addition, if we do that, we can remove the horrible asmlinkage_protect() thing altogether. -- tejun