linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE

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

Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:26:00 +0100
From:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE_END

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 09:17:29AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com> 23.11.08 10:15 >>>
> >@@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ gs_change:
> > 	CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -8
> >         ret
> > 	CFI_ENDPROC
> >-ENDPROC(native_load_gs_index)
> >+END(native_load_gs_index)
> > 
> >         .section __ex_table,"a"
> >         .align 8
> 
> I disagree to this and similar changes in this patch: Why do we need to
> get rid of the ENDPROC() here? It's a procedure that's being ended, and
> using ENDPROC() is the only (existing) way to mark something as a
> procedure in assembly code.

Hallo Jan Beulich,

You are right. ENDPROC(name) adds ".type name, @function;" as compared
to END(name). So I agree that using ENDPROC is in fact better.

> And btw., while described so in the patch comment, this change has nothing
> to do with the subject of the patch.

Right. I thought of END and ENDPROC as equivalent, so I added the change
to this patch as a small cleanup only. But if we want this .type
annotation, what about KPROBE_END? should it include one there too?

I'm getting a feeling we would be better off removing KPROBE_ENTRY and
KPROBE_END if favour of explicitly changing sections in the .S files?
And using the ENDPROC annotation for all procedures?

Greetings,
	Alexander

> Jan
--
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/