| 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: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:23:15 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To: mingo@...hat.com
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: [RFC 1/1] orc: mark it as reliable
We need a reliable stack unwinder for kernel live patching, but we do
not want to enable frame pointers for performance reasons. So let ORC be
a reliable stack unwinder on x86 as it performs nicely wrt reliability
of traces.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org
---
I am sending this as an RFC. Do you still consider ORC to be not-enough
reliable?
arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 063f1e0d51aa..7403267407fc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ config X86
select HAVE_PERF_USER_STACK_DUMP
select HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE
select HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API
- select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE if X86_64 && FRAME_POINTER_UNWINDER && STACK_VALIDATION
+ select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE if X86_64 && (FRAME_POINTER_UNWINDER || ORC_UNWINDER) && STACK_VALIDATION
select HAVE_STACK_VALIDATION if X86_64
select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
select HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
--
2.14.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists