Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls thatneed it

[Ingo Molnar]

* Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Agreed.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/