| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 10:40:02 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:25:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 08:46:55AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > I like the balance, but the "ret" is still non-obvious. > > Does it have to be obvious? I feel that making "ret" obvious is better. But if somebody messes up and adds a second "ret", I suppose stackvalidate would warn about the fact that it returned without restoring the frame pointer. So if there are no other objections, your suggestion of ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME is fine with me. -- Josh -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists