linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: update for .39

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:38:24 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
	hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, sam@...nborg.org,
	ddaney@...iumnetworks.com, michael@...erman.id.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: update for .39

On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 09:11 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 15:47 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Re-fresh of updates against latest -tip tree.
> > 
> > Thanks Jason,
> > 
> > I started looking at them, I should have comments tomorrow (if I have
> > any comments ;)
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've tried to split this update up somewhat, but I've only succeeded to split
> > > out the dynamic debug bits. The interface changes and re-write are quite
> > > intertwined.
> > > 
> > > I believe this update should address all the comments from the previous posting
> > > except for Mathieu's request for a section of jump label pointers that point to
> > > the jump label structures (since the compiler might leave gaps in the jump label
> > > structures).
> > 
> > The jump label structures is a list of 3 pointers, correct? I doubt that
> > gcc would place any holes in it as they are all aligned by natural word
> > size.
> > 
> 
> Hi Steven,
> 
> Can you explain what would prevent gcc from aligning these 3 pointers
> (total of 24 bytes on 64-bit architectures) on 32-bytes ? Also, could
> you point out what would refrain the linker from aligning the start of
> object sections on the next 32-bytes (thus power of two) address
> multiple ?

Maybe it would be just easier to add another long ;)

Seriously, it would. Then it would be 32 bytes on 64bit and 16 bytes on
32bit. Then I guess we can have our guarantee without doing a large
change to have this indirect pointer and still waste sizeof(long) bytes
in having it.

Just insert a long "Reserved" word.

-- Steve

> 
> I think we need to be a bit more strict in our interpretation of what
> guarantee gcc/ld provide and don't provide with respect to section and
> structure alignment.
> 
> As it stands now, the section alignment of jump labels looks half-broken
> on most architectures, and this *is* a big deal. I would really like to
> see a patch for this (it can be a separate patch) going in for .39.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Mathieu
> 


--
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/