linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:27:05 +0100 (BST)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, pinskia@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

> A simple way to detect it on the assembler level would be checking
> that the section is the same after #NO_APP as before #APP

 Not as simple as the section stack would have to be traversed to check
whether there are any differences.  And in the end, either such a complete
check or a simple one you have proposed may not be desirable, because I
can imagine in some scenarios the change of a section in an asm may be
deliberate.  Let's not limit the tools.

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