From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8670 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/3] fix matching errors for overwritten registers in x86 CFI generation script Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:27:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20151014192736.GV8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1444735732-12265-1-git-send-email-alexinbeijing@gmail.com> <20151013224204.GT8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151014191408.GU8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444850874 25101 80.91.229.3 (14 Oct 2015 19:27:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:27:54 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8682-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Oct 14 21:27:53 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZmRiI-0007Tr-7Z for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:27:50 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 11444 invoked by uid 550); 14 Oct 2015 19:27:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 11423 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2015 19:27:48 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8670 Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:23:59PM +0200, Alex wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Alex wrote: > > > This has been an interesting exercise so far. Is there any other arch > > which > > > you think it would be worthwhile to develop a CFI generation script for? > > It > > > should be something which has enough users to avoid problems with bitrot. > > > > CFI is probably a lot less interesting on archs where you have a > > plenty registers not to need to manipulate stack frames in asm > > functions, since in that case the debugger mostly works fine without > > CFI. I don't know right off which of the other archs have significant > > amounts of asm that adjusts the stack pointer, but you could go > > through and check them. Having ABI info for them all would be helpful; > > I'm pasting my draft ABI reference (which might have errors) below. > > Fair enough. If it's not likely to help anyone, I'll leave the CFI > generation here. > > Another idea: are you interested in an implementation of POSIX AIO which > uses the native AIO syscalls? Bad idea? Those syscalls have nothing at all to do with POSIX AIO. They're completely different. :( Rich