On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 05:54:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 05:27:38PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > @@ -145,6 +146,7 @@ ENTRY(cpu_resume_mmu) > > ENDPROC(cpu_resume_mmu) > > .popsection > > cpu_resume_after_mmu: > > + kasan_unpoison_stack 96 > > I don't think the 96 here is needed since we populate the stack in > assembly (__cpu_suspend_enter) and unwind it again still in assembly > (cpu_resume_after_mmu), so no KASAN shadow writes/reads. > > Otherwise the patch looks fine.
I'd much rather it was written in C -- is there a reason we can't do that if we use a separate compilation unit where the compiler will honour the fno-sanitize flag? Will
