[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:27:36 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/3] fix matching errors for overwritten
registers in x86 CFI generation script
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:23:59PM +0200, Alex wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
