[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:56:19 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
andreyknvl <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kcov: support comparison operands collection
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:46:18PM +0200, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via syzkaller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:15:10PM +0200, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via syzkaller wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 05:05:19PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> >
> >> > ... I note that a few places in the kernel use a 128-bit type. Are
> >> > 128-bit comparisons not instrumented?
> >>
> >> Yes, they are not instrumented.
> >> How many are there? Can you give some examples?
> >
> > From a quick scan, it doesn't looks like there are currently any
> > comparisons.
> >
> > It's used as a data type in a few places under arm64:
> >
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h: __uint128_t tmp;
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h: tmp = *(const __uint128_t *)iph;
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h: __uint128_t vregs[32];
> > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h: __uint128_t vregs[32];
> > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h: __uint128_t vregs[32];
> > arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c: __uint128_t raw;
> > arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c: __uint128_t tmp;
>
> Then I think we just continue ignoring them for now :)
> In the future we can extend kcov to trace 128-bits values. We will
> need to add a special flag and write 2 consecutive entries for them.
> Or something along these lines.
Just wanted to make sure that we weren't backing ourselves into a corner
w.r.t. ABI; that sounds fine to me.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists