From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755088AbdESJRg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 19 May 2017 05:17:36 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:34342 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753759AbdESJRc (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 19 May 2017 05:17:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/29] x86: assembly, use ENDPROC for functions
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
References: <20170421141305.25180-1-jslaby@suse.cz>
 <20170421141305.25180-4-jslaby@suse.cz>
 <20170426014217.hshjlweqsimaumuy@treble>
 <4c3b765e-483a-4d9b-c451-6eccc02403f3@suse.cz>
 <20170512221532.s2wuaoq65uvaprgq@treble>
 <4a63c996-6c86-c298-dd9c-34b77afc6f27@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <a78d080c-1d32-c47c-b5b5-b5f809faacb5@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 11:17:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4a63c996-6c86-c298-dd9c-34b77afc6f27@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 05/17/2017, 03:23 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> So the initial CFI state is different between the two types of
>> "functions".  And there are a lot of other differences.  C-type
>> functions have to follow frame pointer conventions, for example.  So
>> your FUNC_START macro (and objtool) would have to somehow figure out a
>> way to make a distinction between the two.  So it would probably work
>> out better if we kept the distinction between C-type functions and other
>> code.
> 
> Ok, that makes a lot of sense.

A quick question:
Do you consider these to be C-type functions?

  ENTRY(function_hook)
        ret
  END(function_hook)

or this?

  ENTRY(native_load_gs_index)
        pushfq
        DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_ANY & ~CLBR_RDI)
        SWAPGS
        movl    %edi, %gs
        SWAPGS
        popfq
        ret
  END(native_load_gs_index)

Both are called from C, but they do not setup frame pointer etc.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs